Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:11, 13 July 2014 editBhny (talk | contribs)14,433 edits →A2 Milk: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:47, 26 December 2024 edit undoNeotaruntius (talk | contribs)205 edits →Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to top and bottom}}
{{skip to bottom}}
{{VEFriendly}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 50 |counter = 172
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft=5 |minthreadsleft=5
|algo = old(4d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{MedTalkheader|archivedays=4<!--should be equal to the # in "algo=old(#d)" from above-->}} {{MedTalkheader|archivedays=30<!--should be equal to the # in "algo=old(#d)" from above-->}}
{{Press
{{WPMED related changes|popular=yes}}
|author = Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|title = Misplaced Pages war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive index
|date = June 14, 2024
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive <#>
|org = ]
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Archive <#>
|url = https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/wikipedia-war-fierce-row-erupts-over-israels-deadly-nuseirat-assault
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive <#>
|lang = <!-- default is English -->
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no
|quote = Misplaced Pages was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.
|archiveurl = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate = June 14, 2024
}} }}


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Study on Misplaced Pages's coverage of drug-safety ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:thank you for post--] (]) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


== PCORI (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute) as MEDRS? ==
I'm not a regular here, but thought I'd make note of this if it hasn't been made already. Came across a recent study by Harvard researchers on Misplaced Pages's reliability and speed at updating drug safety information:
* in the ]
* in the New England Journal of Medicine. '''~'']'']''' <small>] ]</small> 21:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
::Yes am in discussion with the FDA regarding possibly collaborating. They are of course a big organization and move slow. On my end I am interested. Others thoughts? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Ideally one for the Pharmacology project. Overall our response seems good, but with serious lapses at times - so just like WP in general. Isn't there an FDA online list that someone just needs to check at intervals, after we are sure we are up to date? Of course the FDA is not the whole of the story, and no doubt already far better covered than other regulators around the world. On a quick look I couldn't see anything to complain about in their method, which makes a change. ] (]) 10:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
::::What we need is someone interested in taking this on. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: One can sign up for e-mail updates to FDA "Recalls and Safety Alerts" and "MedWatch Safety Alerts" . I have just done so. If I get a relevant alert, I will at a minimum post a message on the pharmacology project talk page and in addition, update the Misplaced Pages drug page if I have time. ] (]) 09:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: From the , here is a relatively recent of an FDA alert. Would this be an appropriate response? ] (]) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Bog. If the FDA is interested in a more formal relationship do you want be to involved you? They say it will be a few weeks before they decide. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Interesting. Yes, I would be willing to work with them to improve Misplaced Pages drug articles. ] (]) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: I'd also be interested in collaborating if such an opportunity presents itself. I've been keeping the articles that I {{tl|maintain}} up-to-date with the FDA's label revisions, safety reviews, and similar updates. That said, it'll obviously be difficult to standardize and maintain the articles that currently lack FDA citations to the FDA's current drug safety information. ] (]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Is there a consensus that using PCORI is an acceptable ] source? There is a six-year that was . -] (]) 00:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== external links at ] ==


: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 ], and the resolution was not(!), so I suppose these sources in whole or in part may not be ]. But if none of their work product is, one starts to get very close to the conclusion that nothing is ]. ] (]) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi folks, an editor at ] has been repeatedly restoring external links to what the editor acknowledges are anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites, as well as one AAP website that does not mention phimosis. The anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites are non-peer reviewed and give medical advice. The reason this editor gives for restoring the external links is that this particular editor finds the websites "helpful" or "useful"; I have pointed out repeatedly in ] discussion on the article Talk page that the links fail ], ] has also pointed to ]. Latest restore of the links by this editor is . More input would be appreciated. <code>]]</code>
::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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 22:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Apology == == 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 ''. 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 ]. 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.
Having had some time to consider the events of the last week, I'd like to offer an apology to Doc James in the same forum in which I took something of a public shot at him. I believe I raised my concerns in an overly emotional and confrontational way, and did a lousy job of enunciating the real basis for my concerns regarding the "P" journal. I'm going to take some time off to reconsider whether and how I can be more effective here.


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.
This note is not intended as a fishing expedition for expressions of any sort from the community, but simply as an acknowledgement that I mishandled my conflict with Doc, who has for the most part been very accomodating of my POV, which on some issues is very different from his own. I'd also like to apologize to the community for the histrionics. (Maybe an SSRI would help.....) ] (]) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
::Formerly 98 I view your work here as positive. Yes we have a slightly different position on the "P" source but generally I think we are in agreement around most things. Look forwards to seeing you back and working together in the future. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Can someone (briefly) catch me up here? What is it that happened? I'm not asking to open wounds here, I'm just wondering if I can help in any way and I'm wondering what is being debated with such intensity. ] (]) 05:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The two expert editors, signing at the top of this section, were briefly characterizing some aspects of Pharma and Medicine, namely the possibility of others gaming the processes of the encyclopedia, versus potential clinical value of some contribution, in only a few sentences. But they were thinking several steps ahead of what they actually wrote, and their ideals entangled. (My personal reading: it's all good.) OK? --] ] ] 14:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Ok. ] (]) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::I do not think we were commenting on gaming the processes of Misplaced Pages. We were discussing the different ways in which systematic reviews are produced and the issues with the various methods. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My concern, which I completely failed to enunciate in a way that anyone could understand and respond to, is that Prescrire very clearly makes claims to be more reliable than other sources based on its policy of excluding from its processes not just those with conflicts of interest with respect to a specific topic, but anyone with any relationship with the pharmaceutical industry at all. It was my impression that Jmh49 was specifically endorsing this viewpoint, which was of considerable concern to me given his obvious and well-earned position of influence. As a member of this (pharma associated) group (and one who is somewhat proud of his career and personal accomplishments) I'd find it very helpful to have some clarification on this and whether this is Misplaced Pages Medicine's position going forward. ] (]) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::To clarify, it is also not my position that Prescrire is more reliable than other sources such as Cochrane reviews or USPSTF reviews. If we use Prescrire it is important to state that Prescrire is a French perspective. It is also of course just a single perspective. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


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.
== Beware of more quackery ==
]]]
In the past few months, supporters of ] and mind-body therapies have succeeded in publishing a number of ''woo'' articles in various medical journals. Here are some brilliant examples:


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.
1. '']'': (December 2013)


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?
2. '']'': (January 2014)


I note that ] is a separate article from ], 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 ] as well; there are various helpful parallels that are worth considering, I think. ] (]) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
3. ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'': (January 2014)


== Sourcing milestone ==
4. '']'': (March 2014)


Hello, all:
5. '']'': (April 2014)


We've been working this month on getting at least one source into unreferenced medicine-related articles. There are now ] 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.
6. '']'': (June 2014)


We are doing this now to support the ] 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 <code>#NOV24</code> in the edit summary), plus all the pages that got new references but which weren't tagged.
7. '']'': (July 2014)


Please join in and do your bit. We'd really appreciate it. ] (]) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
8. '']'' - (July 2014)


== Requested move at ] ==
It appears that every 2-3 weeks, another one of such articles are repeatedly thrown into medical literature, for whatever reason I do not know. Does any of them satisfy ] criteria? If not, more eyes may be needed at articles related to ] or mind-body therapies. Also, now may be a good time to enforce broader ''and'' stricter ''']''' on Misplaced Pages to prevent fringe POV editors from promoting fringe quackery. -] (]) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:commented--] (]) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


== valvular heart disease: treatment ==
:There's no good reason to label any of that as pseudoscience. There is of course a lot of pseudoscience associated with meditation, but there is nothing unscientific about the idea that behaviors such as focusing attention on one thing for a period of time can produce alterations in brain state that are worth studying and potentially beneficial. I'm not even stating a minority opinion here -- I believe the majority of neuroscientists view this the same way I do. ] (]) 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
::I think ] applies here. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


In the ] article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. ] (]) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:(ec) I gotta go with Looie496 on this. Without going into a deep critique or analysis of the papers listed by A1candidate, we ''know'' that patients who are generally relaxed and happy tend to do better than patients who are anxious and depressed, especially with regard to things like pain management. This is pretty basic Psych 101 stuff. Obviously anyone who offers a mechanistic explanation involving the movement of ''qi'' from the spleen to the colon is spouting mystical bullshit, but encouraging an internal ] can have tangible benefits. (Whether this makes meditation a particularly potent placebo or a genuine intervention is arguably a matter of semantics.) ](]) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS ?--] (]) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::The paper in JAMA (the only one I checked) is a systematic review. A ] is not generally considered a "woo article", regardless of its subject, and quackery is when you reject the data, not when the data shows that something that you dislike works despite your dislike (or that something you do like doesn't work). ] (]) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Agree with WAID. A few of these are primary sources. The JAMA meta-analysis concludes "small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress.", "Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior" and "We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies)." so not exactly an endorsement. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}These are the first two sentences in their conclusion:
:"Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should ''be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have'' in addressing psychological stress." (emphasis mine)


== "dissociates by quantum" / "the quantum of fatigue" ==
The words highlighted in italics certainly sound like an endorsement or even a guideline ("''be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have''"), although it's good to know that they have acknowledged some limitations in their study. What is more worrying is how JAMA has turned into a sellout advertising board for ] as demonstrated by a :


If someone with the relevant expertise could look at ] in the ] article, that would be wonderful. ] (]) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:"For some mind-body approaches, however, there is mounting evidence of usefulness and safety, particularly in relieving chronic pain. A few examples include ] for ] pain; ] for ] pain; and ], ], and ] for chronic back pain.


:Fixed. ] (]) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:Increasing comfort with this emerging evidence is reflected in practice guidelines from the American College of Physicians, the American Pain Society, and the Department of Defense."


== Retinal tuft and VTS: draft articles ==
And just a few months ago in March 2014, they endorsed "" with a '''highly dubious claim''' that "Acupuncture is associated with improved pain outcomes compared with sham-acupuncture", although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.


Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on ] or ], common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome.
As ] recently , many of these articles, such as this pointed out by him, are in fact pseudo-systematic reviews funded by the quackery trade. In contrast to some forms of meditation, there is clear consensus that acupuncture is by ''every measure '''pseudoscientific'''''. Why did you, Doc James, that you see "no problems with (using) it"?
I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?
*]
*]


Remember, we're only talking about JAMA so far. I think the problem is far worse at some other reputable journals -] (]) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you so much! ] (]) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::] maybe you should quote what QG actually state which was "A pseudo-systematic review funded by the trade?" And yes I do not see a problem with using it. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::] - I'm more skeptical to overbearing claims such as yours: ''although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.'', than something from a systematic review. To me this sounds far more like you are disregarding evidence against your viewpoint. -- ] ] (]) 10:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm with CFCF here: woo is when you say that anything that you've decided is "alternative" can't work because you magically know that it doesn't work. Science is when you say that the evidence suggests that (in this case) meditation might have some value for some situations, so therefore you agree that it might not be completely worthless.
::::In this case, the possibility for benefit seems so highly plausible to me that it's odd there was ever any truly serious question about it: Meditation practices a core mental skill, described in our article on the subject as "training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control", that a person with anxiety often needs to improve, namely being able to focus on whatever task is at hand instead of letting the mind wander off into whatever is worrying you. Acquiring the basic mental skills to focus on whatever you choose, rather than being incapacitated by uncontrolled worrying, does not sound like "woo" to me. ] (]) 15:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::The OP was being sarcastic. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I'm not being sarcastic when I say that a putative review which includes in its abstract the phrases "{{tq|... the integration of transcendental experiences and the unfolding of higher states of consciousness ... This integrated state, called Cosmic Consciousness in the Vedic tradition ... Transcendental experiences may be the engine that fosters higher human development.}}" is a woo paper, despite being published by NY Academy of Sciences. I accept that your mileage may vary, of course. --] (]) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I meant the OP who started this section. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::The OP presented a mixed bag of sources in a way that is difficult to discuss, imo, in a forum thread of this type. ] (]) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::We can discuss these one by one but agree this list of some good and not so good sources is difficult to approach. It also depends on what text they are being used to support. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


:While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for ]. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
=== When a prestigious journal publishes a pseudoscientific article/review ===
::Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! ] (]) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Commented out: , you know that ''something'' just isn't right]] -->


== ] Peer review ==
I feel that what ] pointed out is a very important point: deals with topics that appear to be pseudoscientific ("cosmic consciousness"), yet it is published by a well-established academic journal - The '']'' - which has a considerable impact factor. The question I want to ask is this:


Hello everyone, in an attempt to get ] to FA status I have begun a ] on the topic which can be found at ]. Any input is welcomed! ]] <sup>(])</sup> 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::''Where do we draw the line to separate science from pseudoscience?''


== New disease outbreak ==
The same journal, in the same issue, also published a claiming to have found preliminary evidence that "meditation can offset age-related cognitive decline". Are we supposed to accept or reject this claim? How can we be sure that the editors of the '']'' aren't deliberately publishing pseudoscientific reviews? -] (]) 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::This review states " Growing evidence suggests that cognitive training programs may have the potential to counteract this decline. On the basis of a growing body of research that shows that meditation has positive effects on cognition in younger and middle-aged adults, meditation may be able to offset normal age-related cognitive decline or even enhance cognitive function in older adults." followed by "Studies involved a wide variety of meditation techniques and reported preliminary positive effects on attention, memory, executive function, processing speed, and general cognition. However, most studies had a high risk of bias and small sample sizes."
::This could be summarized as "Low quality evidence suggests a possible benefit from meditation with respect to age-related cognitive decline". This is hardly revolutionary. We know that learning a second language can be beneficial as may mind games. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::There is no bright line that separates science from pseudoscience. We are here to accurate report the positions of reliable sources not to determine "truth" ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::: ...So unlike with homeopathy in the case of (various types of) meditation active therapeutic effects are biologically plausible. (At the same time, I do agree with {{U|RexxS}} that parts at least of that conference ] are really rather wooey.) ] (]) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:I agree with A1candidate that this is a real matter for concern. How do we "know"?
:If the answer is that we must re-examine the credibility of a journal (that was previously considered well-established and reliable) whenever it publishes something that seems <i>woo</i> to some editors, I think this sets us up to do a lot of original research, and makes the acceptability of a particular journal subject to the views/prejudices/interests of the currently active editors. ] (]) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry I am not seeing the issue. We just summarize high quality sources. If the are high quality sources that disagree with each other than we state that. No OR needed. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


I've created ]. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. ] (]) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If a high quality source publishes something that "some" editors see as <i>"woo"</i>, is it still a high quality source? ] (]) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
: doubtful it's 'unknown'--] (]) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If a high-quality source publishes ], is it still a high-quality source? I think so—and whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. If a journal is still, overall, a good&nbsp;source despite publishing something controversial about conventional medicine, then it's still a good source despite publishing something controversial about alternative medicine. ] (]) 06:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, I missed there was already ]. Will merge. ] (]) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Even if we generally accept the journal, what about the controversial article itself? I'm referring to this one on , in particular. It may not be a systematic review, but it's still a secondary source published in a reputable scientific journal. -] (]) 08:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Not list as a secondary source by pubmed. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: The article in question is part of an apparently ]-based issue, and as such was likely subject to limited scientific peer-review scrutiny. I certainly wouldn't suggest refusing content from conference proceedings and journal supplements out of hand, regardless of circumstances, as that would mean discarding good, pertinent content that sometimes isn't so readily accessible, or even available, elsewhere. But in the spirit of MEDRS I feel this category of publication might be worth flagging in a nuanced way. ] (]) 08:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}<s> I've been meaning to ask about that, there are a number of sources, notably '''' which are not pubmed-indexed as Reviews. What do we do with them? -- ] ] (]) 07:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)</s> Not relevant to this case, completely different question. -- ] ] (]) 07:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


==]==
:::::::A1candidate asked "Even if we generally accept the journal, what about the controversial article itself? I'm referring to this one on 'full transcendental experiences during meditation', in particular."
:::::::What about the article? If you mean "can it be used as a source?", I think the answer is "it depends on what statement from the article is being used and also the context for which it is being considered." ] (]) 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I recently created a draft for ], which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the ]. There is currently an article for the book ], but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, ] (]) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:--] (]) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Remember that there is ]. Waiting until other authors can respond to the paper is a reasonable alternative. Depending on the publication cycle and review speed of the journal, this may be several months. ] <small>]</small> 17:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
==]==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{rfc|style|rfcid=3D3121C}}
Is changing text from
*"200 children without autism." to "200 ] children"
*"normal individuals" to "] individuals"
*"matched controls" to "matched neurotypicals"
*They are also changing ASD to autism.
We have unfortunately lost the person who has written much of our autism content. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:If you know a more appropriate alternative to "allistic", please add it, because "without autism" doesn't make any sense and we have already determined consensus on person-first language.
:"Normal" is not a diagnosis and is frankly presumptuous. There is no reliable source to say those individuals were normal. Neurotypical is an accurate medical term whose inclusion makes the article more informative. Replacing "controls" with "neurotypicals" similarly clarifies who we are talking about. If there's a strong reason to keep the word control, call them neurotypical controls to differentiate from a possible control group of more autistic people.
:A person on the autism spectrum is autistic. That's why it's called the ''autism'' spectrum. "Person with ASD" should be replaced with "autistic person", as per the consensus determined on ]. ] (]) 06:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::Lets gets other opinions on these word changes.
::ASD includes both autism and ] thus changing it to just autism is not exactly correct. Yes the DSM 5 have merged these diagnosis into autism spectrum disorder but that is still not simply autism.
::There was weak support for changing "person with autism" to "autistic person" and I am fine with that. However that was not the only thing you have been changing in your edits thus the reverts. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::: In this context, by "autism" you mean "classic autism". ASD, classic autism, and Asperger Syndrome are all forms of autism. The fact that old references use outdated terminology is not a good reason to prevent Misplaced Pages from updating. Misplaced Pages has its own style guide and does not latch onto references like a chameleon. If I see something wrong while working on a different issue, I'm inclined to correct both of them. If you have a problem with only one part of an edit, you can change that part, or revert and reintroduce the "good" changes. Just reverting is disruptive. At the very least you could provide an explanation of which parts were problematic, I'll check my notifications and put the "good" parts back.] (]) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:Can you direct me to the Misplaced Pages guideline page that mentions "private language"? Given that articles on Deaf culture use "hearing person", "allistic" is not unprecedented. ] (]) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::Have changed the article on ]. Hearing person is poor English but at least a person can figure it out. Allistic gah.
::If you are planning on more controversial changes best to get consensus before hand. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::That response did not answer the question. Is there a guideline page explaining "private language" or did you just make the controversial change from "hearing person" to "person with normal hearing" without getting consensus first? ] (]) 07:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Use of the term 'neurotypicals' without wikilinking it is very hard to justify as it's against ] and in the context of an experimental design 'control' is a much better description of their role. The ] example should use the same terminology as Wakefield does, because it's talking about a person's beliefs and the further we take it from their terminology the more OR it is. The ] changes just look wrong --- I still have no idea what the "ability to demonstrate" change is about. ] (]) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:I believe you are referring to an example in which the word neurotypical was wikilinked earlier in the article. I figured there was no need to link it twice. "Ability to demonstrate comprehension" is a more accurate description as comprehension itself is immeasurable except through self-reporting; this applies in more contexts than just autism. Do we really need to have disputes and consensus over every minute change in wording? If that's the case, we should set up a lock an all articles so that all edits need administrator approval. ] (]) 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Added RFC tag because an interest in "other opinions" was expressed. ] (]) 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:My opinion is that the ] dicussion, which didn't mention other pages and was closed with a "a relatively weak consensus" is no basis to change a the language in a large number of articles. ] (]) 08:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::: Muffinator has also brought this to ANI ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::::] is at the very least the ''most popular'' article about autism. More importantly, consensus is consensus. If you have an issue with the discussion being deemed a consensus, take it up with the user who closed the discussion. ] (]) 08:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
*Re: '''RFC''': Could it be clarified what '''exactly''' opinions are being sought for? The four items at the top of the discussion, or more/other than that? In terms of "allism/allistic", that is clearly inappropriate -- it's a confusing, very obscure neologism with no widespread official acceptance at all; it wasn't even "added" to WP or Wiktionary till a few days ago, and even then without a single source. The neurotypical vs. normal debate has more basis in definitive usage, but even then, Stuartyeates' recommendation that WP use the terminology of the cited articles makes a good degree of sense; I don't personally see any real basis for confusion what "normal" or "control" means here. "Autism" is not the same as ASD, that much should be clear to anybody -- one is a spectrum, the other is a specific (autism is always classic autism unless otherwise noted). ] (]) 08:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::That was what I was wishing people to weight in on. Thanks. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::Strongly agree with Softlavender, and even if it wasn't for those strong arguments there is no consensus for such a broad change. -- ] ] (]) 10:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:"Allistic" is clearly a ] without clear definition or wide linguistic acceptance in the English language. It would be inappropriate to insert the word into wide use on Misplaced Pages without significant discussion and broad community consensus. ] (]) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


==Images==
Having written extensively on ASD:
We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? ] (] · ] · ]) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
# "allistic" is an inappropriate term and should not be used
# "neurotypical" is the most correct term in lieu of "normal" (because normal cannot be defined)
# "ASD" is more correct than "autism", unless you're talking the rare cases of full-bore, far end of the spectrum Autistic
# "matched controls" is a scientific term, and must be kept for scientific consistency
So in short, the changes are mostly wrong, but one might just be right <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:* <small>Or simply "<s>matched</s> controls" (the ] is an aspect of the study design). ] (]) 13:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)</small>
::''Allistic'' is POV jargon. ''Neurotypical'' is unhelpful to people who are unfamiliar with the subject. ''Non-autistic'' or ''people without an autism diagnosis'' (because not all allegedly neurotypical people actually are neurotypical) is a better choice.
::One other reason for avoiding ''neurotypical'' is that it's based on a false dichotomy: a person can have neurological problems that are not ASD-related. A person with schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis is, as a matter of physical facts, neurologically atypical, even if that person has no significant ASD-related symptoms at all. ] (]) 15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::: Support for 'non-autistic'. --] (]) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Agreed, 'non-autistic' seems like the correct phrasing, which neither places value judgments nor assumes. ] (]) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to use a word like "neurotypical" on wikipedia, you will need to define it at the first instance in the article using brackets. Since that definition will probably use the word "normal" it seems a bit pedantic to me, but I am unfamiliar with the topic. If hte literature uses the term then support. ] (]) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
::We should be using plain English as much as possible. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I agree with Doc James on this one. ] (]) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


:]
::::Writing as a layman, ie., an editor without any medical credentials, the first three of the four changes mentioned above (from "children without autism." to "allistic children", from "normal individuals" to "neurotypical individuals", and from "matched controls" to "matched neurotypicals") confuse the sentences they appear in. If it is important for precision of language to distinguish (eg) between "normal" and "neurotypical", an extra sentence or two should be added to make the distinction. ] (]) 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. ] (]) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Looking for a Tuesday Challenge? ] - Giant Pelvis ==
*Has any organization which advocates for the autism community every published a manual of style for journalists? Has any such manual of style been identified or sought? {{u|Muffinator}}, do you know anything about this? Can you recommend any organization which might have published guidance on this that we could copy instead of developing it ourselves? ]] 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:*The Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Autism Women's Network are prominent advocacy groups which advocate for Autistic-first language. ] (]) 14:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:::In my view that doesn't justify it as the de facto terminology for Misplaced Pages. Just as the National Stroke Association pushed for brain attack, a patient group organization can not simply change our vocabulary. Misplaced Pages should use terminology used by the most prominent sources, and not that of patient groups, however noble their motives. Misplaced Pages is not the place to drive a crusade for or against use of any terminology. At best we could state that portions of the autistic community choose to use this terminology.-- ] ] (]) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The fact that certain terminology is used by the relevant groups may not necessarily be a reason for Misplaced Pages to adopt it, but the fact that certain terminology is more accurate and more neutral than what was previously used is a reason for Misplaced Pages to adopt it. I offer these two groups as sources for what ] requested. ] (]) 08:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{u|CFCF}} {u|Muffinator}} I wrote to ASAN asking if they had a manual of style for journalists. They publish a statement on why they use , but at the bottom of that statement, they list other activists in the field who use "people-first language". Regardless of what scientific sources say, I would rather use what the community itself uses if we can establish that this community has consensus among the people who talk about such things. Because of the diversity in viewpoints on this topic, it seems undecided. I will see how they reply to my email about their recommendations for writing. If there is a recommended way in the ASD community, then I think we should follow that, but if there is a lot of controversy in the community, then I would say that Misplaced Pages cannot take a strong position. {{u|Muffinator}}, it is my opinion that the strongest argument that you could make is listing which organizations use language you suggest. I see no such list anywhere, but such a list would be the evidence that Wikipedians would want to see. Whatever ASAN says I will share also. ]] 10:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi! I came across this article from the ]. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!
===X with autism or autistic X?===
There's a discussion at ] about whether to use "child with autism", "autistic child" or both. The former appears in PubMed about 25 times as often as the latter. --] (] · ] · ]) 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:I suggest we use whatever is most commonly used in the professional literature. -- ] ] (]) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


]
== Crick after DNA ==


] (]) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
After Crick's success in understanding the secret of life (see his autobiography '']''), he naturally turned to the next open problem: ], which he worked on for the rest of his life. His collaborator, ], completed their last paper together {{cite journal|year=2005|author1-link=Francis Crick|author2-link=Christof Koch |title= What is the Function of the Claustrum?| first1=Francis|last1=Crick|first2=Christof|last2=Koch|doi=10.1098/rstb.2005.1661}} Now, 10 years later, Mohamad Z. Koubeissi MD, et al. (2014), ''Journal of Epilepsy and Behavior'', while seeking to cure a woman's epilepsy, have learned that electrical stimulation of the ] reversibly turns off her consciousness, while leaving her wakefulness intact. Turning off the electrical stimulation returned her consciousness. Crick and Koch point out that the claustrum enjoys reciprocal connections to the rest of the brain, including ], in the ].
:--] (]) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks {{Ping|Ozzie10aaaa}}. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Misplaced Pages article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! ] (]) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--] (]) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anamolies ==
From the viewpoint of scientific method, the Crick & Koch 2005 paper contains a cautiously worded hypothesis, while Koubeissi, et al. 2014 constitute a ], because the Koubeissi experiment describes a reversible method, while Crick & Koch describe a theory which will likely prove fertile for decades, just as the DNA story has proven. The length of the fertile period exemplifies the Lakatos criterion for the 'strength of a scientific programme'.


] for anyone interested. ] (]) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
My question for the MED project is: although Crick & Koch 2005 is labelled a 'review', and therefore a secondary source, does it qualify as MEDRS? What is needed for the concepts which are implicit in Koubeissi , et al. 2014 to qualify? --] ] ] 09:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:thanks for post--] (]) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:Crick's hypothesis noteworthy enough to be covered, though the hypothesis itself is primary material so is best approached through secondary sources. The current ] article is not in the best shape. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::The cautious observation I refer to (p.6 of the 10 page pdf) is "There are remarkably few microelectrode investigations of claustral receptive-field properties and almost none in awake animals." -- Crick and Koch 2005, which Koubeissi 2014 has kindly supplied. --] ] ] 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


== Introducing Let's Connect ==
*In my view, the Crick & Koch paper meets MEDRS, but the views in it are admittedly speculative, so if they are referred to in Misplaced Pages, it should always be with wording such as "Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that ...". In other words, it should be made clear that these are the views of specific people rather than mainstream ideas. As a source of background information about the claustrum the paper can definitely be used, although in a few respects it is already out of date. A better source for background info is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983483/. The Koubeissi paper is absolutely a primary source. My personal opinion is that their findings are not nearly as important as some people make them out to be, and in any case they were obtained from a single human subject and certainly need to be replicated. ] (]) 13:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello everyone,
::Note: I've commented more extensively on this on my personal web site, see if you are interested. ] (]) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is ] and I am a part of the ] - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : '''MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America. '''
:::Nice. Thanks. --] (] · ] · ]) 14:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


=== Why are we outreaching to you? ===
== Acupuncture again ==
Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Misplaced Pages, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics ].


We want to invite community members who are:
I apologise for bringing this before you again, but I'm being tag-team reverted by two SPAs on ].


* Part of an organized group, official or not
In {{diff2|616081786|this edit}}, Middle 8 (an acupuncturist) removed the text:
* A formally recognized affiliate or not
* "{{tq|A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham.&lt;ref name="Ernst 2011"/>}}"
* An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
with an edit summary claiming that the source doesn't support the statement. The source, , states:
* An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.
* "{{tq|Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham.}}"
I restored the text, but have been reverted by Herbxue.


'''To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this .'''
Debate continues on ], but there's no common ground. I'd appreciate more eyes on this, please, as the local editors seem intent on diluting any content that doesn't present acupuncture in a positive light, even impeccably sourced text. --] (]) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)
:: It is not true that I am whitewashing, only being accurate. Please read the whole paragraph that the statement comes from. The authors are clearly referring to one PRIMARY source. Why would they use past tense if they are drawing a general conclusion? Why is the statement not found in the abstract, or in the paragraph starting "In conclusion, …" in the body? Because it is not the conclusion of the 2011 systematic review of reviews, it is a reference to one study. ] (]) 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::: You can see what I'm up against? It's not true that the review authors are referring to one source - and it wouldn't even matter if they were. We prize secondary sources because the authors make judgements about what sources are important and here we have an editor trying to tell us we can't use the unambiguous conclusion I stated above because the previous two sentences in the review examined particular primary sources. This has to stop. --] (]) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:::According to this by User:Herbxue the systematic review of systematic reviews is referring to a 2009 review. Now he claims it was a . But that is totally irrelevant. We should . ] (]) 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: I did not say Ernst'11 is a primary, the statement in question refers to the finding of 1 primary source.] (]) 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Exactly. It's how Ernst describes ''one trial'', not the overall findings of his review of reviews. (tl;dr version of my long post below... but there you can read the relevant excerpt) --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Many thanks and warm regards,
So, here is the deal. There's this thing called "context". Nothing against RexxS, but he's failing to grasp that in context, the quote "{{tq|Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham}}" is the review's description of ''one trial'', not its overall conclusion about the literature. (doi for Ernst '11: .) This becomes obvious when Ernst begins by noting that {{tq|"The majority of the early reviews}} '''' {{tq|arrived at negative conclusions , while the majority of the 57 recent reviews were positive. Yet there are many contradictions and doubts...."}} So, right off the bat you can see that this review-of-reviews finds more reviews than not that find efficacy for acupuncture. Still with me?


Let’s Connect Working Group Member
Now, Ernst does not believe these results will hold. He believes that the reviews that he has reviewed are all subject to bias, etc., because the trials that ''they'' review are not well-designed. He explains this by discussing two more recent (as of 2011), well-designed studies, and that is the context RexxS isn't grokking (emphasis mine):
{{cquote|These findings should be seen in the light of recent results from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Cherkin et al. have shown that, for chronic low back pain, individualized acupuncture is not better in reducing symptoms than formula acupuncture or sham acupuncture with a toothpick that does not penetrate the skin. All 3 forms of acupuncture, however, were more effective than usual care. The authors consider, therefore, that the benefits of acupuncture ‘‘resulted from nonspecific effects such as therapist conviction, patient enthusiasm, or receiving a treatment believed to be helpful’’ . '''This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis examining the effects of acupuncturists’ communication style . Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham.''' Moreover, a communication style generating high expectations in patients resulted in improved outcomes compared to a normal style,
regardless of the type of acupuncture administered. In the primary studies included in the systematic reviews evaluated above, the risk
of bias was often considerable. Adequately controlling for nonspecific effects in future is likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has
no or few specific effects on pain .}}
Obvious enough? RexxS also confounds the issue by failing to grasp that "efficacy" is shorthand for "efficacy beyond placebo", i.e. a stronger response to true acu than sham acu (the latter being the control). I wish RexxS had taken the time to learn the basics of this topic areas before editing, and read more carefully <small>(he had trouble with the same source earlier, re SAE's )</small>. Instead he's ABF'd all around, disrupted the talk page, put those of us who are clueful in a ] situation, and devolved into personal attacks. Oh, and he . But whatever. Just another tricky day. The source says what it says. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 19:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
* I'm with ] on this one. ] (]) 20:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:: That's just wishful thinking, Middle 8. Ernst et al have surveyed the literature concerning acupuncture and pain; they found two areas, LBP and osteoarthritis, where good quality reviews showed that acupuncture shows some effectiveness. They then write the paragraph quoted. That's the context and Middle 8 is willfully ignoring it. The paragraph above refers to the finding in the reviews and then goes on to contrast two high-quality RCTs that showed for LBP and osteoarthritis that "true" acupuncture was no more effective than "sham".
:: They then state an important conclusion for this review of reviews: "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham." We don't know how many reviews or studies were examined by Ernst et al to reach that conclusion, but that isn't our concern as Misplaced Pages editors. Middle 8 and Herbxue would have us believe that it was just the two primary sources that they looked at - but offer nothing more than their own analysis to justify that claim. Even so, no matter what sources led Ernst et al to reach that conclusion, it does not weaken it as it is a significant conclusion of a reliable secondary source; and it cannot be grounds for removing it from the article.
:: As for {{tq|"efficacy" is shorthand for "efficacy beyond placebo"}}, I've never heard such absolute rubbish presented in any debate. That is pure fabrication in a desperate effort to shore up an indefensible viewpoint. That's the quality of debate I'm struggling to make progress with.
:: Middle 8 is an acupuncturist with an obvious conflict of interest in the presentation of acupuncture in the most positive light. Herbxue is an SPA with over 100 of his 138 article edits to TCM or acupuncture. Is anyone here able to read that paper and explain to them that they need to respect secondary sources? I've tried and all I get is personal attacks from them. --] (]) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::: I suggested "At least two recent high-quality randomized controlled trials found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham" with citation to Ernst (not the individual papers). Even that weakened version was rejected. It seems to me that reasons are actively being sought for removing the material. ] 02:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: That seems like a good proposal – surely unobjectionable. And yes, the ] long in evidence around this article make it a depressing timesink. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 02:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::: {{replyto|Vzaak}}, {{replyto|Alexbrn}} Please. Of course we discuss sham = true (a.k.a. lack of efficacy), and yes in the lede, but we do it properly, with good sec and tert sources. A little better than citing two RCT's from Ernst, I think. Try Colquhoun and Novella '13 , top of p. 1361 ''et passim''. As for using WP's voice? Yes if sources are uncontested. But Novella and Colquhoun's "anti" editorial is countered by Wang et. al.'s "pro" , and we also have other good MEDRS finding contesting (pain, nausea), so no we don't use WP's voice for this -- not now. Hence my objection to Ernst '11 as it was cited: wrong source, wrong wording, right idea. <small>My gawd, what a POV push -- he wants to cie stronger MEDRS than RCT's for sham = true! (cut to Alexbrn and Vzaak scratching their heads, trying to figure out where they're being conned, and finding illumination in the cryptic acronyms "AGF" and "NPA")</small> --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::@{{replyto|Middle 8}} – Editorials are not "stronger MEDRS" than findings validated in systematic review. A "cryptic acronym" you and some other editors of the page would do well to acquaint themselves with is "]". The issue is not good faith, the issue is that acupuncturist editors are blind to their bias, which is why COI-tainted editing is generally frowned on. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Alexbrn}} Colquhoun is a thorough and up-to-date bibliography of systematic reviews covering dozens of RCT's, but if you think those two RCT's from 2009-10 are exceptionally awesome, be my guest. Plus, it's not as if we exactly neglect efficacy in the lede; just those special words "sham" and "true" (which indicate the exact same thing) have been absent. Re COI, you know I ]. Since then you've been IDHT-ing about the fact that global consensus on COI isn't the same as yours. Your ''continuing'' to bring it up is unproductive and tendentious, especially since you ''routinely'' do so in lieu of commenting on my edits. Which is the definition of NPA. If you continue like this, I will raise it as a discretionary sanctions issue. Another editor already got warned. --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I did not raise your COI "in lieu" of anything - I directly addressed your claim about ''content'' - about what is higher in the MEDRS scheme. Systematic reviews are not beneath editorials, as you incorrectly wrote. I then responded to your self-confessed "snark" (you give yourself licence to make personal comments while complaining about any you receive). Identifying a COI is not however "an attack" &ndash; COI-tainted editing is an important issue here as it can damage the consensus-forming process. I am aware you have been to COI/N, and you were there that as someone who makes money from acupuncture, you did indeed have a COI. On your userpage, you choose to represent the thread as having "closed with no finding of COI", a summary which ... wants for candour. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 10:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't have a COI on WP, and that's been obvious for months per COI/N, in light of which your repeatedly "identifying" one is tendentious. Having a profession is not, ipso facto, an indication of COI, and that's the policy we follow, nowithstanding the opinions of editors who don't understand/like it. See the "<small>''']'''</small>" link in my sig for more, and a rebuttal of your generalization about acu'ist editors. Commenting on the contributor gratuitously is out of line, and you've done so in the past , as well as above (re Colquhoun & Novella). (BTW, that editorial is a good place to find sec/tert sources, not a replacement for them.) <small>There's no snark in my comments on these issues. The snark I refer to is at Talk:Acu, when I said sarcastically that it was a CPUSH to cite sec/tert sources was CPUSH). --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) <small>copy edited 00:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)</small>


] ]
:::::"At least two recent high-quality randomized controlled trials found" would be speculation on our part. ] (]) 03:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Er, what speculation? It's right there in the source: "These findings should be seen in the light of recent results from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Cherkin et al. have shown that, for chronic low back pain, individualized acupuncture is not better in reducing symptoms than formula acupuncture or sham acupuncture...This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis...real acupuncture was no better than sham." ] 05:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::According to an editor is confused by the wording.
:::::::The previous text is not the part that we are using to verify the claim. Let's start here: "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham...." The source at the end of the paragraph is this source (PMID 19174438). ] (]) 06:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::* The chronic low back pain RCT is Cherkin et al., ''A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain.'' In the Ernst paper: "Cherkin et al. have shown that, for chronic low back pain, individualized acupuncture is not better in reducing symptoms than formula acupuncture or sham acupuncture..."
::::::::* The osteoarthritis RCT is Suarez-Almazor et al., ''A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee: effects of patient-provider communication''. In the Ernst paper: "This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis...real acupuncture was no better than sham." That last part, "real acupuncture was no better than sham", refers to . Yes, that phrase comes after literal citation to , but it's clear from the context that it refers to , not . Directly after "real acupuncture was no better than sham" it says, "Moreover, a communication style..." That is also referring to -- see "effects of patient-provider communication" in the title of the RCT? That is what Ernst is talking about. And further, it wouldn't make sense for these phrases to be referencing because those are not the conclusions of .
::::::::] 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::*"A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (For brevity the text in the lede should be shorter.)
:::::::::*"A systematic review of systematic reviews, after reviewing the results of high-quality randomized controlled trials, found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (For the body.) Based on your arguments we would add this to the article.
:::::::::*. This seems to happen too often on CAM articles. I think we should go back to the to fix the problems. I still think we are only assuming what specific research Ernst was reviewing to come to that specific conclusion. We wouldn't cite the RCTs. We should only cite Ernst 2011. ] (]) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
QG are you reading how others are seeing that text? Before you go back to your version please make sure you are taking into account what II, Anthony, Axl, and Vzaak are saying. It looks like there is some agreement that you cannot say the text in question is the conclusion of the Ernst paper.] (]) 18:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:Oops, I thought you were trying to go back further than that, to before my revert of Rexxs. NW's text looks ok though.] (]) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::----
::::::::::I think this addresses the current objections: "A systematic review of systematic reviews highlighted recent high-quality randomized controlled trials which found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." I am throwing away my old suggestion and going with this one. ] 17:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::: I guess thats technically defensible (its accurate), but don't you think its a bit of a sneaky way to present results of a primary study? What I don't understand about this debate is that Ernst's ACTUAL conclusions are already quite damning of acupuncture, I don't understand why you guys are bending over backwards to present this one piece that is not a conclusion of the review?] (]) 17:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Herbxue, it is the findings of a systematic review of systematic reviews. ] (]) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You keep repeating that, but you aren't taking into consideration the impartial people reading the source differently.] (]) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


==Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions==
:::::::::::Vzaak, does this work for you? "A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (For brevity do you think the text in the lede should be shorter?)
Requesting input on this topic ] at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – ] (], ]) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::"A 2011 systematic review of systematic reviews highlighted recent high-quality randomized controlled trials which found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (Text for the body). If you want to fix the problems with the OR and text missing from the article we can start when this clarification is added. ] (]) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:commented--] (]) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|QuackGuru}} I don't think any of the text as currently in the lead is improper original research or synthesis (but then again, I'm the author of the current version of the lead paragraph, though I haven't touched the article body). It explains to the reader more effectively what "sham acupuncture" really means, without <small>(apparently, hadn't noticed this when writing)</small> actually using the word "sham" (I have no objection to it) and why even sham procedures can treat patients in trials (sourced appropriately to MEDRS-preferred/compliant sources). '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::I think the tags should not be removed without fixing the problems. The sentence ending with "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently." is also missing from the article. I prefer balanced and neutral ledes. Any editor can check the current version with this . ] (]) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I believe that we all prefer balanced and neutral leads. Also, we are all against poverty, war, and oppression, and in favor of motherhood and apple pie.
:::::::::::::The problem is not our values. The dispute here is whether a statement that you personally believe to be "balanced and neutral" is accepted by everyone else as being "balanced and neutral". So far, your idea of "balanced and neutral" does not line up with most people's idea of "balanced and neutral".
:::::::::::::Given the problems with this dispute, I'm inclined to say that only words in the actual, labeled "Conclusion" section of Ernst's review should be used to support any text in the article. That would help us produce an encyclopedic summary and eliminate these disputes about whether sentence X is a conclusion about the entire subject or is a description of just one study. ] (]) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Stating that it is a description of just one study is original research. ] (]) 18:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, understanding that a statement in a paragraph that describes a single study is about that single study is actually something called "having good ] skills". But if you would stick to making statements that only appear in the actual conclusions of that paper, then it wouldn't matter that you and everyone else understand that paragraph differently. ] (]) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: If you would read the paper, you'd realise it doesn't have a 'conclusions' section. It winds up with a 'discussion' section and that contains the conclusion "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham." It's a statement of the authors' conclusions, written in the authors' voice, not a quote from an earlier study. It's pure original research, not reading comprehension, to analyse secondary sources by trying to guess what was in the authors' minds. We have to accept that authors of secondary sources do the analysis for us, otherwise we might as well throw away the concept of secondary sourcing and just have the free-for-all of Misplaced Pages editors reaching their own conclusions from analysing primary sources. --] (]) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Have you read ref 128 that's cited in that paragraph? It's . <br />The relevant part of that paragraph says, "Let me tell you about ref 128, which had two interesting findings. The first was, and here I quote from its abstract, "No statistically significant differences were observed between TCA or sham acupuncture, but both groups had significant reductions in J-MAP and WOMAC pain compared to the waiting group". The second interesting finding was, and here I'll also quote from its abstract, "acupuncturists’ style had significant effects on pain reduction and satisfaction". <br />To claim that the middle sentence is not a description of the study explicitly named in the first is to say that, of the three sentences here, the first is about ref 128, the second is about all studies in general, and that the third is once again, without any warning, suddenly going back to ref 128. That's not a reasonable interpretation of the paragraph. Even if the second statement is actually a universal truth (which wouldn't necessarily surprise me), all three of those specific sentences happen to be about the same single primary study. ] (]) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: Of course I've read PMC3651275. Have you read the paper you thought had a conclusions section? Here's what it actually says:
::::::::::::::::::* {{xt|Looking through the all the current reviews, we've found no decent evidence of acupuncture's effectiveness in treating pain, except for LBP and osteoarthritis. But those two don't count either because here are two RCTs for (1) LBP and (2) osteoarthritis. The authors of the LBP study say the benefits of acupuncture "resulted from nonspecific effects such as therapist conviction, patient enthusiasm, or receiving a treatment believed to be helpful" (and that's Ernst et al directly quoting Cherkin 2009). The same thing was found by Suarez-Almazor 2010 for osteoarthritis.}}
:::::::::::::::::: So the question you are left with is how did Ernst and his coauthors decide that those RCTs were worthy of inclusion among a "review of reviews"? The answer of course is that they were perfectly aware that sham acupuncture is as effective as real. Those RCTs were mentioned to directly address the two areas of LBP and osteoarthritis that appeared to show evidence of effectiveness in the reviews. The other conclusions are made by Ernst et al quite generally without citing anything until Madsen 2009 at the end of the paragraph. Neither you nor I can possibly know what evidence they had seen to reach their conclusion about real vs sham, but it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the two RCTs that related to LBP and osteoarthritis just happened to be the only ones that the authors had seen that described the equivalence of real and sham, don't you think? And that's why we don't do analysis of secondary sources - because one editor's interpretation can differ radically from another's. We never abandon the secondary source to quote the primaries it's based on for exactly that reason. We should respect secondary sources not make guesses about how the authors constructed their conclusions. --] (]) 01:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I'm not concerned about how the authors constructed their conclusions. I'm concerned with whether a single sentence in the middle of a paragraph that appears to be describing specific sources is either (a) a factual description of conclusions reached in that single source ''or'' (b) a broad conclusion drawn by Ernst et al. about the entire subject. You and QuackGuru have settled on (b); everyone else seems to have settled on (a).
:::::::::::::::::::Of course, if you really are right, then perhaps someone would email Ernst about the advantages of using the present tense to describe current facts, and the value of reserving the past tense for things that are over and done with. In that single past-tense-because-it-happened-several-years-ago study, real and sham acupuncture certainly '''were''' equally (in)effective. If Ernst meant to declare a general fact about efficacy, then the authors should have written that these things ''are'' equally (in)effective. Their choice of past tense in that sentence indicates that they are describing something that is over and finished.
:::::::::::::::::::It seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that real and sham acupuncture ''are'' actually equally (in)effective for pain. However, that particular sentence should not be used to make that claim, because that particular past-tense sentence is describing facts about a one-time event, not making pronouncements about Ernst et al's own conclusions on the subject. ] (]) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Ernst is singularly cautious in stating only what the evidence supports. He would not extrapolate from the past-tense description of specific trial's findings to a present tense generalization, although it is obviously tempting to do so. Even if that generalization were correct, it would not be academically honest to make it. He doesn't lack access to expert advice on grammar, should he find difficulty in expressing something. ] <small>]</small> 02:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] and comparable genes with inhibitors in clinical trials ==
: Can someone e-mail the Ernst 2011 paper to me please? ] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small></font>]]</small> 21:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Okay, I have the paper. Thanks. ] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small></font>]]</small> 22:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::: Rexxs I don't think I attacked you, just assumed you didn't read it carefully. This is a legitimate content dispute and your attempt to discredit me is not helpful, and kinda inappropriate. Yes, please we need more people reading the paper. ] (]) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: Yep, and please feel free to email me for a copy. Remember, it's a review of reviews. Those RCT's Ernst cites are part of a discussion of his findings about said reviews, not part of the findings themselves. Hence that passage above. RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness (just click thru my sig line re alleged COI). --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


I started this discussion at ], and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Misplaced Pages has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. ] caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Misplaced Pages coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like ] (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to ] (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). ] ] 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* The PDF is (likely legal as it is past embargo, which is generally 12-36 months for Elsevier these days and 12 months for ''Pain''). Based on what I'm looking at, I don't see how one could realistically conclude that the statement is "overall" rather than specific to a couple particular trials (Cherkin et al and Suarez-Almazor et al). The preceding sentence shows that: "This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial ... Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all ..."; for the overall conclusion, see the abstract which says "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain". If the sentence in question were an overall conclusion, it would be quite grammatically awkward given its past tense. We should ], although I also don't think it is real healthy to focus so much in a single topic area. ] | (] - ]) 00:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:--] (]) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! ] ] 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== Drowning ==
:: The under dispute are "''A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham''" and "''The same review found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham,''" referenced to Ernst 2011. However this is not what Ernst says.


The WHO has released their first-ever . It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.
:: Ernst's comments about sham treatment seem to refer to two RCTs&mdash; and . Cherkin investigated chronic low back pain, while Suarez-Almazor investigated osteoarthritis of the knee.


], ], ], ] ], would this interest any of you? ] (]) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:: However the paragraph goes on to state "''Adequately controlling for nonspecific effects in future is likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain,''" referenced to . This seems to be the conclusion drawn by Ernst on the basis of the sources Cherkin, Suarez-Almazor and Madsen. This also fits with the statement in the abstract "''In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain.''" ] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small></font>]]</small> 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Right, and we've had Ernst '11 prominently cited in the lede for a long time for exactly that conclusion. Lack of efficacy is synonymous with sham = true acu, so I don't see why the need for sham/true wording is a big deal. If it is, fine, but Ernst '11 isn't the right source. And no source justifies using WP's voice as long as the claim is contested by other good MEDRS's, which is the case here, cf. . --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


:Thanks, I will take a look. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Don't say Ernst found blah blah blah. It was the researchers whose work he mentioned who found it. If you have to mention those results - and I don't see the point, really - rather than, ''"A systematic review of systematic reviews found blah blah blah" and "The same review found blah blah blah,"'', just say, ''"Two ] (RCTs) found that blah blah blah,"'' and cite both trials (as well as Ernst's review lest anyone should object to the primary sources). I do this from time to time to clarify or emphasise a point made in the findings or conclusions of a review. (I wouldn't in this case.) --] (] · ] · ]) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


== Do The Lancet's Personal View articles meet the standards for a secondary source? ==
* is my attempted solution, with explanation ]. ] 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi WikiProject Medicine,
== Wikimania event ==


The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? ] (]) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimania event is now booked for the eve of the conference on Thursday, August 7th 2014at 3.30-6.30 p.m.. The page is at ; please sign-up there. In brief, Cancer Research UK, will be hosting the event at their HQ at The Angel Building in Islington. There will be a presentation and discussion on issues around accessible language, followed by a move to a nearby pub. At 6.30 we move off to cover the 1.5 miles (2.3 km) to the Barbican to catch the Wikimania Opening Ceremony and drinks, starting at 7pm.


:Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? ] (]) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Please publicize this to any medics attending Wikimania, or medical wikiprojects! Thanks ] (]) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? ] (]) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for this.
:::I was asking in general but here is an example:
:::Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract
:::discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? ] (]) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.] (]) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. ] (]) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
:Spreading the word, thank you! ] <sub> ]</sub> 05:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Posted on various international WPMED pages. -- ] ] (]) 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


:The proposal is to move the page ] → ]. ] (]) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== PANDAS ==
seem not very convincing -- somebody qualified please check. Thanks. --] (]) 16:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
::Have reverted. Introduced some errors. Unclear why the changes. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC) There are a lot of new SPAs at ]; more eyes needed. ] (]) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Thank you. It was confusing. --] (]) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: The same IP is back with the same (or a very similar) version. For example vomiting is removed again and changed to pain. Text is again much shorter, nuances removed. There's nothing about this on the article talk page nor on the IP's talk page, tho there are recent comments on the IP's talk page. --] (]) 06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


:Could some people please put this article on their ]? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. ] (]) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. ] (]) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. ] (]) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:
:::* https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-infection-sparks-obsession-pandas-and-pans
:::] (]) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (]). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. {{u|Ajpolino}}? ] (]) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
At the header link. This is a write-up of the notes made in an initial review by a CRUK specialist. The idea is to sort these points out in the article before sending the article for review by other outside specialists. Epidemiology & the missing research section were not covered - will be done with other people. Not all points made are written up. I'm hoping this gives the medical editing community enough to go on to start serious work on the article, but I realize it may not. This is the 3rd in a series - see also ] and ]. ] is already an FA, but there were some points. I hope ] will come in a week or so. ''Many thanks'' to those editors who have followed up on the earlier reviews. ] (]) 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


:I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. ] (]) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
==Name for "place where infection spreads"==
::Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:
Is there a name for a place where infection spreads because of sick people being in contact with uninfected people? Hospitals are places where people get ]s, college dorms are places where meningitis can spread, and I just started an article on ] for disease spread in daycare centers where young children meet. Can a place be called a ], if there is a causal relationship between going to a place with sick people and getting infected? Can entire rooms or buildings be ]? Is there some word for a place with infection risk? I expect there is no appropriate word, but I thought I would ask. ]] 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|39334578}} 2024
:I don't think vector is the right word you are after. Suggest ask an epidemiologist or something. I think they might say something like center or focus to describe locations in relation to an epidemic, but probably not quite the same thing. How about just saying what you mean: "Area with high risk of infection". Not sure there is any specific jargon for this. ] (]) 10:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|34197525}} 2021
::Yes, I think is probably the term you want. ] (]) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|33041996}} 2020
:::Can also be used in the sense of ] I think. So at the organism level rather than the population level, "focus of infection" could mean a local infection spreading to other areas of the body. ] (]) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|32206586}} 2020
::::That article is exactly what I wanted. I just made an article called ] in which I listed places, but perhaps that should be merged with the theory article. I suggested that on the talk page for the theory article, and might merge it after thinking for a while. Thanks for your help. ]] 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|31111754}} 2019
:::::The phrase is used . I'm not sure about the claim that "Focal infection theory is the background concept that such places may exist." That may well be so etymologically (OR?) Or just an example of a ] referring to different concepts according to the context? Anyway, I don't think merging would be appropriate. ] (]) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|30996598}} 2019
::::::On looking again, I misread the concept about the theory. They are different ideas. There should be no thought of merging. ]] 17:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::# {{PMID|29309797}} 2018
::... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. ] (]) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. ] (]) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. ] (]) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We could take it to ] if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{tl|db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) ] (]) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... ] (]) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::]. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 ] (]) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- ]°] 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. ] (]) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Re {{tq|Is the article itself getting vandalized?}}, another question is whether the talk page is being used appropriately or disruptively? ] (]) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Looking for an updated international/intergovernmental source for drug safety info==
If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - ] - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --] (]) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hatnote|Cross-posted in more detail at WT:PHARM - see ] for more info.}}
Does anyone know of an international or non-governmental organization that publishes and updates comprehensive monographs on pharmaceuticals? I'm looking for monographs that are comparable in detail to the examples below and maintained like the FDA's publications.
:*USFDA: and
:*HSDB-TOXNET: and
:*IPCS-INCHEM: and
]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 01:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


:Thanks for the note.
== ] ==
:This is a political 'thing' in the US at the moment, so having a decent article will be the best way to prevent well-intentioned but imperfect attempts to improve it. In particular, I think that the claims that have been in the news for the last year should be directly mentioned and addressed. Usually, if we put in something that says "____ was claimed, but this is wrong because..." then that will work, but if we remove it, then people assume that it's accidentally missing, and that we would consider if helpful for someone to add "____ is true!" to the article. ] (]) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:: That ist true, but the SPA is now even removing all criticism at all. I didn't delete it just moved it.
:: that is why this is highly flawed and needs attention by more members here. The SPA is just reverting in a nonconstructive way.--] (]) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], I see you were editing that page recently. @] semi'd the page indefinitely years ago. What do you think about raising that to ]? Or tagging it as part of ], since that's what's driving the edit wars? ] (]) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Better sooner than later.
:: You see that also on the discussion page. --] (]) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Review AI-generated articles ==
A relapse of a medical condition and resuming a drug misuse are two different things. I suggest creating a separate article about the relapse of medical conditions (maybe at ]?). Could someone experienced look into that? Thanks. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em black">]</span> <small><nowiki>] ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 07:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi there! While reviewing at AfC, I recently came across several AI-generated medical articles, some of which are still in draftspace and some of which have been accepted and moved to mainspace. These articles do not immediately come across as AI-generated, but when run through , they have high AI-generation scores.
:Isn't substance abuse a medical condition too? ] (]) 10:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
* ]
:: The current article is mainly about drug abuse, perhaps an article on relapse in general is needed? <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em black">]</span> <small><nowiki>] ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 10:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
* ]
:::Ideally yes, but like many generic topics it would not be an easy one to prepare. ] (]) 11:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
* ]
:::(ec) You could do that, but most of the article seems well off-topic either way, being about addiction and addictive substances. It was mostly added over a short period by an editor who then vanished ], and should probably be checked for copyvio, and if ok moved somewhere more suitable, if there is such a place. Or at least move it to a narrower title, & keep this for the general medical term, on which there is certainly more to be said. Wiki CRUK John/] (]) 11:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
* ]
::::Agree. ] (]) 11:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
I would really appreciate it someone over here could help go through the articles to ensure accuracy. Thank you! ] (]) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:@], I looked at ]. It was created in multiple edits over the space of several hours. All the refs are real. (I know nothing about the subject matter.) Do you have any reason except for the tool to believe that this is LLM content?
:I think most people associate "relapse" as something a patient has done to themselves (such as drug abuse), while something like "recurrence" relates to the disease re-surfacing. For example, a cancer that came back "recurs," rather than "relapses." I'd suggest starting an article called ], as ] already exists as a disambiguation page. --] (]) 17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:I am suspicious of "detector" tools, because they ] declare content that I wrote to be generated by an LLM. ] (]) 22:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Per ]:
::Hi, ]! I ran it through . That particular article shows a 99.8% AI-generation score. ] (]) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:*
:::@], I ran some of through the same tool, and it said human: 0.983, ai: 0.017, and mixed: 0.0. Try putting in the tool and see what you get. ] (]) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:* <br> ] (]) 20:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::::]: Interesting... I'll have to bring this up to the individual who created the tool. I initially ran the edit before mine through the tool, and it told me 90-100% AI-generated. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Although the tool may be wrong, I do find it telling that when I ask ChatGPT to write a Misplaced Pages article about Bile acid synthesis disorders, it basically writes the exact article currently published.
:::::Chat's lead reads, "Bile acid synthesis disorders (BASDs) are a group of rare, inherited metabolic conditions caused by defects in the enzymes involved in the production of bile acids. Bile acids are essential for the digestion and absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as for the regulation of cholesterol levels. BASDs can lead to a variety of symptoms, including liver dysfunction, malabsorption, and developmental delays."
:::::Aside from a few slight wording adjustments, this is exactly what is written in the article. The classification section is the same way. The other sections have similar starts. Chat's sections are just about a sentence each, so it's quite possible each section was started and then asked something along the lines of "Could you expand on that"? When I asked GPT to expand on classification, it started adding similar information as to what is in the article. ] (]) 01:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I wonder if it is (now) adapting the Misplaced Pages article, or if it would have given you the same results before the Misplaced Pages article was created. ] (]) 01:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== No CSD for badly referenced medical articles/gibberish? ==
Relapse is not specific to drug abuse, and recurrence is not specific to cancer etc. ] (]) 01:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


So, ] has sadly been created by one of my students (sorry). But it also made me suprised - I was going to CSD it but I could not see an applicable criterion? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 11:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


Current medical knowledge related to treatments advocated by ARI is being removed based on the assertion that sources discussing these treatments don't explicitly mention ARI. Explanation of and edits to adhere to MEDRS would be useful. - - ] (]) 00:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC) :One person's "badly referenced medical content" is another person's ]. I think you did a reasonable thing by moving it to the Draft: namespace. ] (]) 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is not the sort of thing that I would think would have a CSD criterion at all. ] ] 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. It's not concrete and indisputable enough. ] (]) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles ==
:<s>Ok, so I'm already being of "whitewashing", which I suppose was inevitable. My editing track record stands on its own, if anyone is interested in perusing it. My edits to this article () were an attempt to make it neutral, per ]. To put it simply, the article said ''the Institute claims that chelation is a viable treatment for autism'', followed by what I feel is commentary and original research '''in context''', used to rebut the subject's positions on this and other issues (vaccines cause autism, etc) using citations that didn't even remotely address the subject, but rather its claims. To me, this is a complete lack of neutrality. If there is scientific evidence that chelation is bad, that's fine. That belongs in the chelation article. But turning an article about an organization into commentary about how wrong we think they are, using references that don't even mention them, is a gross violation of the neutrality principle we all must abide to around here, at all times. I note that there are already sources in the article that mention negative effects of chelation treatment and the Institute - those are still there and I have no interest in removing them. {{u|MrBill3}}'s assertion that we must rebut the subject's view (be that an organization or an individual) strike me as fundamentally contrary to the letter and spirit of the NPOV policy. We have an obligation to show both sides of a story, yes, but not at the expense of impartiality. If a source speaks about the subject, it should be included in the article. If it does not, it should be omitted. I cannot believe that editors in the past came to an agreement to trample NPOV in ''certain cases'' (?) where we have a collective negative bias? Is that the case? Is that spelled out in ] or some RFC I'm not aware of? And if it is unacceptable to have an article that speaks about a given topic like chelation and we can't help but insert commentary making sure veryone knows that's really bad, is that not a violation of our ] guideline? Something's rather wrong here if that's the case. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 00:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)</s> Nevermind. I can see how this is just going to be a massive waste of time. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.
== ] ==


I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.
The article on A2 milk has recently been rewritten to make health claims based on anecdotes and a few primary sources. ] (]) 04:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment:

For T3, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.

For T4, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T4 and T3).

For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:

A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)

B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).

Thoughts? ] (]) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

== Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine ==

Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Misplaced Pages editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project ]]. But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. ] (]) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:47, 26 December 2024

Skip to top Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

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

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

    List of archives
    Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    valvular heart disease: treatment

    In the valvular heart disease article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. 38.55.71.51 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    "dissociates by quantum" / "the quantum of fatigue"

    If someone with the relevant expertise could look at this baffling language in the Fatigue article, that would be wonderful. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    Fixed. Jaredroach (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    Retinal tuft and VTS: draft articles

    Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on Retinal tuft or Vitreomacular traction syndrome, common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome. I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?

    Thank you so much! JenOttawa (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for WP:AFC. IntentionallyDense 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

    Neurocysticercosis Peer review

    Hello everyone, in an attempt to get Neurocysticercosis to FA status I have begun a WP:Peer review on the topic which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Any input is welcomed! IntentionallyDense 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    New disease outbreak

    I've created 2024 unknown Democratic Republic of Congo disease outbreak. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    lab results pending doubtful it's 'unknown'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, I missed there was already 2024 Kwango province disease outbreak. Will merge. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Delay, Deny, Defend (practice)

    I recently created a draft for Delay, Deny, Defend (practice), which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the Killing of Brian Thompson. There is currently an article for the book Delay, Deny, Defend, but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    it needs more text and sources...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Images

    We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Obstetric Fistula Locations Diagram
    In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Looking for a Tuesday Challenge? Pelvis_justo_major - Giant Pelvis

    Hi! I came across this article from the list of uncited articles. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!

    Pelvis justo major

    JenOttawa (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    this is the only thing I found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks @Ozzie10aaaa:. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Misplaced Pages article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! JenOttawa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anamolies

    Here's the discussion for anyone interested. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Introducing Let's Connect

    Hello everyone,

    I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

    Why are we outreaching to you?

    Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Misplaced Pages, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

    We want to invite community members who are:

    • Part of an organized group, official or not
    • A formally recognized affiliate or not
    • An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
    • An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

    To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

    Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)

    Many thanks and warm regards,

    Let’s Connect Working Group Member

    Let's_Connect_logo Serine Ben Brahim Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions

    Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    TNIK and comparable genes with inhibitors in clinical trials

    I started this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Misplaced Pages has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. TNIK caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Misplaced Pages coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like USP1 (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to CD47 (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). BD2412 T 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    added some recent papers, general research--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Drowning

    The WHO has released their first-ever Global Report on Drowning Prevention. It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.

    Pbsouthwood, Belbury, Ex nihil, Scriptir EMsmile, would this interest any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood : 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Do The Lancet's Personal View articles meet the standards for a secondary source?

    Hi WikiProject Medicine,

    The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for this.
    I was asking in general but here is an example:
    Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract
    discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.JenOttawa (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Requested move at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    The proposal is to move the page Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    PANDAS

    There are a lot of new SPAs at Talk:PANDAS; more eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Could some people please put this article on their Watchlists? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. IntentionallyDense 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. Ajpolino? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:
    1. PMID 39334578 2024
    2. PMID 34197525 2021
    3. PMID 33041996 2020
    4. PMID 32206586 2020
    5. PMID 31111754 2019
    6. PMID 30996598 2019
    7. PMID 29309797 2018
    ... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    We could take it to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:There's no deadline. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- Colin° 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Re Is the article itself getting vandalized?, another question is whether the talk page is being used appropriately or disruptively? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Water fluoridation

    If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - Garbage in, garbage out - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the note.
    This is a political 'thing' in the US at the moment, so having a decent article will be the best way to prevent well-intentioned but imperfect attempts to improve it. In particular, I think that the claims that have been in the news for the last year should be directly mentioned and addressed. Usually, if we put in something that says "____ was claimed, but this is wrong because..." then that will work, but if we remove it, then people assume that it's accidentally missing, and that we would consider if helpful for someone to add "____ is true!" to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That ist true, but the SPA is now even removing all criticism at all. I didn't delete it just moved it.
    that is why this is highly flawed and needs attention by more members here. The SPA is just reverting in a nonconstructive way.--Julius Senegal (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @The Anome, I see you were editing that page recently. @Doc James semi'd the page indefinitely years ago. What do you think about raising that to WP:EXTCONFIRMED? Or tagging it as part of WP:AP2, since that's what's driving the edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Better sooner than later.
    You see that also on the discussion page. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Review AI-generated articles

    Hi there! While reviewing at AfC, I recently came across several AI-generated medical articles, some of which are still in draftspace and some of which have been accepted and moved to mainspace. These articles do not immediately come across as AI-generated, but when run through Misplaced Pages GPTzero, they have high AI-generation scores.

    I would really appreciate it someone over here could help go through the articles to ensure accuracy. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Significa liberdade, I looked at Bile acid synthesis disorders. It was created in multiple edits over the space of several hours. All the refs are real. (I know nothing about the subject matter.) Do you have any reason except for the tool to believe that this is LLM content?
    I am suspicious of "detector" tools, because they sometimes declare content that I wrote to be generated by an LLM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi, WhatamIdoing! I ran it through Misplaced Pages GPTzero. That particular article shows a 99.8% AI-generation score. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Significa liberdade, I ran some of the early revisions through the same tool, and it said human: 0.983, ai: 0.017, and mixed: 0.0. Try putting the version just before your own edits in the tool and see what you get. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    WhatamIdoing: Interesting... I'll have to bring this up to the individual who created the tool. I initially ran the edit before mine through the tool, and it told me 90-100% AI-generated. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Although the tool may be wrong, I do find it telling that when I ask ChatGPT to write a Misplaced Pages article about Bile acid synthesis disorders, it basically writes the exact article currently published.
    Chat's lead reads, "Bile acid synthesis disorders (BASDs) are a group of rare, inherited metabolic conditions caused by defects in the enzymes involved in the production of bile acids. Bile acids are essential for the digestion and absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as for the regulation of cholesterol levels. BASDs can lead to a variety of symptoms, including liver dysfunction, malabsorption, and developmental delays."
    Aside from a few slight wording adjustments, this is exactly what is written in the article. The classification section is the same way. The other sections have similar starts. Chat's sections are just about a sentence each, so it's quite possible each section was started and then asked something along the lines of "Could you expand on that"? When I asked GPT to expand on classification, it started adding similar information as to what is in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I wonder if it is (now) adapting the Misplaced Pages article, or if it would have given you the same results before the Misplaced Pages article was created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    No CSD for badly referenced medical articles/gibberish?

    So, Yangqi acupoint has sadly been created by one of my students (sorry). But it also made me suprised - I was going to CSD it but I could not see an applicable criterion? Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 11:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    One person's "badly referenced medical content" is another person's WP:TRUTH. I think you did a reasonable thing by moving it to the Draft: namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is not the sort of thing that I would think would have a CSD criterion at all. BD2412 T 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. It's not concrete and indisputable enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles

    Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.

    I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.

    At the moment:

    For T3, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.

    For T4, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T4 and T3).

    For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:

    A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)

    B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).

    Thoughts? Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine

    Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Misplaced Pages editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project . But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Category: