Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Clinical 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 20:44, 28 November 2006 editJance (talk | contribs)3,137 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:11, 18 January 2011 edit undoWOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators854,737 edits update template links 
(714 intermediate revisions by 85 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{softredirect|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine}}
{{Archive box|], ], ], ], ], ], ]}}
{{Shortcut|WT:CLINMED}}

{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
<div style="background:#eee; border:1px dashed #999; padding:3px">'''Announcement''': Please have a look at the nascent Medical classification scheme ], add to it, correct it, modify it, whatever seems fit. It would be good to have a sound logical scheme worked out before trying to implement it.

You may also want to ''add'' and ''argue'' at the ]. (this link redirects to ])
</div>


<br style="clear:both" /> <br style="clear:both" />


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Navigation}}
{{WPCM navigation}}


<big>Current threads moved and merged into ]</big>
This is the ''']''' (or lounge, if you're from the ]). In order to streamline the project, this page contains sections where participants can raise ideas for general discussion and debriefing. To communicate recent work and seek collaboration or peer-review of pages, please see ].


----
==History of the present illness==
New article ] -- could use review, expansion, and international perspectives. --] 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: center;"
:I left notes on the article's talk page. ] <sub> ]</sub> 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
| rowspan="2" | ]

| ''WikiProject Clinical medicine'' has been '''merged into''' ]. Please ''']''' for all further discussion. Thank you.
==Request for comments regarding merge proposal==
This is not really about clinical medicine, but I thought some here might be interested. For those familiar with ], ], and ], I received a message from another editor that there is a these articles together. -] 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

==Request for assistance==

Hi all. I've been working on ] for some time, and would appreciate any help in improving the article. I'd like to get it to featured article standards, if possible. Thanks in advance. ] 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==
] is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found ]. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. ] 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

==Participants==
I've initiated a discussion at ] that I would like to merge the participants list on ] to ]. Please comment there. -] 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:Why do you want to merge the two lists? Personally, I don't think it should be done. '']'' and '']'' are two different projects. ] <small>]|]</small> 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

== Infobox:Diseases ==

Suggestions for an explanatory header & footer in Diseases Infobox - see ]. Please comment there. ] 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

== RFA ==

Hi,

for those interested, ] is up for adminship, voice your opinion ''']'''.

--] <small>(])</small> 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:That's easy. ''Ge wordt bedankt, Steven''. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

==Notable patients==
] from ] has ]. OK, so every Aerosmith fan with a computer has descended on the hepatitis C article to include this factoid. All very good and well, except it is another case of a celebrity having and therefore being notable ''on the disease page''. I dispute that this meets notability criteria. Given that this comes up again and again, I have now asked for an ] on this. Come to ] to discuss this. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've read ] and I'm still not clear on what the consensus opinion is how to deal with these factoids. It appears that some feel that a separate list article should be created. If I may, I'm going to post for reference a few threads that have touched on this subject:
::]
::]
::]
:-] 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on ] resulted in the Prominent patients list being extracted to a separate article: ]. This currently being considered for deletion. You may wish to comment ]. ]°] 14:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] for epilepsy ==

Calling all WikiDocs with experience or knowlege of prescribing practice or guidelines for the treatment of epilepsy. Would you please make your way over to the friendly discussion at ] where your opinions would be welcome. The sticking point is the sentence:

:"In more affluent countries, it is no longer recommended as a first or second-line choice anticonvulsant."

Remember to bring your ] with you. Thank-you, ]°] 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

== Timeline of PUD and H. pylori ==

Hi all - I am, very much, a non-specialist. I have been doing research on the history of peptic ulcer disease and H. pylori for my dissertation. In doing so, I wrote a ], for myself, and also posted it here. To be sure I'm not royally messing anything up, could someone take a look at it and suggest improvements where necessary. Thank you very much! --''best, kevin'' <b>]<b>]]<b>]</b> 20:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:Very nice! -- ] 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

==Shaken baby syndrome==
I received a message from a physician new to Misplaced Pages asking me to take a look at ]. He had some concerns that his attempt to correct what he considered biased information was reverted. Given that this subject is beyond my area of expertise, I explained that I would forward his concerns here. Thanks! -] 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

== Oversized stub templates ==

There's a couple of stub types that related to this project that seem to have become somewhat intractably oversized: {{tl|med-stub}} and {{tl|pharma-stub}}. If anyone has any ideas what addition sub-types it would be useful to create, or is minded to do some sorting to the various existing more specific tags, that'd be very welcome. ] 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

==www.collegehealth-e.com links==
On two occasions now links to this website's health topics were inserted into multiple pages (see and ). The multiplicity and absence of adding any content seem at first glance to be a case of spamming. The current editor ] has following a test-warning now engaged on ] stating:

:A well written article has been written that summarized treatment of HPV in "college-age" patients. This article is located at http://www.collegehealth-e.com/4/n02.htm any thoughts?
:{{unsigned|71.127.172.67}} 03:36, 9 October 2006

The articles are well written and, more importantly, well sourced/cited. The problem is more of whether content should be added to wikipedia articles or external links. Ideally no external link should be made if it fails to add greater information than the finished article should have once it reaches featured-article status. In this case I think the collegehealth-e.com is generally more detailed. Secondly wikipedia is not here to act as a link to other sources - we don't have one-to-one links to the equivalent article at Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encarta - yet I appreciate that collegehealth-e.com is not trying to be an encyclopaedia on all topics. I am more uncertain the more collegehealth-e.com articles I look at, perhaps this is a useful resource? But if so, should it be a standard external link resource provided by ] ? What do other editors think ? ] <sup> ] </sup> 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I copy across the latest exchange from my talk page:

A review of the Misplaced Pages guidelines reveals: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Misplaced Pages article." Links relevant to the college-age population are greater in detail for that demographic than the Misplaced Pages article calls for. In regard to your accusation of "spamming": your claims are speculated. You should review the external links contents before making accusations that a legitimate contributor is spamming.
] 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:] includes ''wide-scale external link spamming'', and ] point 2 states ''"If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Misplaced Pages -- not just to funnel readers off Misplaced Pages and onto some other site, right?"'' and point 5 notes ''"Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun."''
:So despite having been that "itchy trigger finger", I do tend agree with your assessment of the depth of detail, so can I suggest you present your case at the Clinical Medicine projest at ]) :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] announcement ==

'''Invitation to an excellent beginning''': Announcing the birth of ]!! Its up and running as part of the clinical medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade ] for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Misplaced Pages! Cheers!!! ] 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:Excellent! Look forward to more eye-related FA's -- ] 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::Shortcut ] redirects to the ] project. Phew! ] 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I guess this is one to keep an eye on. ;-) ] <small>]|]</small> 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== request for peer review on breast implant rewrite ==
I've done a fairly major rewrite in a "sandbox" on the entry on breast implants at http://en.wikipedia.org/Breast_implant/Revised which I would like some input into from the group. This is a pretty dry & evidence based presentation re. the history, use, & reviews of alleged links to systemic disease (with silicone implants). Breast implants is one of the medical topics that really bring the political activists out (like autism & vaccines, fibromyalgia, aesbestosis, etc..) and that has plagued this entry for months. In fact, the most prominent anti-implant activist in the world has been actively engaged in misrepresenting this wikipedia entry and continuing her political campaign thru it. There is a clear general consensus in the world medical literature on this and that is the where the discussion needs to start IMO. ] 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:I've history merged the revised version with the original version, as I view the new one to be a vast improvement -- ] 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

== DYK nomination for ] ==

As per AED's suggestion, ] is nominated for ].... ] 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

==Trip database links==
One of the owners of the Trip Database (lists 3rd party EBM sites on any given searched topic) started to add links to their site to multipe pages. This clear breaches spamming policy (adding site to multiple pages) and ] policy (not adding links to website one is involved with).

However the system of collating EBM resources is intriging. Do other editors feel this is a useful external resource to use? If so, then should it be added to articles not as manual External link, but rather within ]. However this is not a site that directly gives information, but rather provides onward links, several of which (eg eMedicine) can already be directly linked to by the existing template.] <sup> ] </sup> 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

* '''Don't use''' - Perhaps a useful site to mention here in the WikiProject Clinical Medicine and on the explanation given for the ], as a resource for editors to use in finding the EBM to write a good article with. But site/link to it should not appear in the articles/template itself, being a tertiary directory listing rather than the secondary EBM resources themselves. ] <sup> ] </sup> 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

*TRIP is a very useful resource for EBM, and I think it's well worth a link/mention in the "External links" section of ] - though I agree that adding it to all those articles in that way was out of order. There is a link in ], and I'll try and ensure it stays there. Meanwhile, maybe ] would like to write an article on TRIP! Thoroughly justified, I'd say. ] 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

*Hi, sorry my enthusiasm got the better of me, I assure you there was no intention to spam! I'm actually involved in the medical wiki and most sections of ganfyd has a resource section that includes a link to auto-search TRIP (as well as other resoucres) see, for example, . I'd be delighted if TRIP was included in an appropriate infobox. I've added an entry to the ] and will expand on that shortly. Once again apologies for, inadvertently, spamming! --] 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Don't use''': if it's a collection of links, it's against WP:EL and would set a bad example.--] <small>(])</small> 22:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

** To reduce TRIP to being a 'collection of links' seems a bit harsh! If any wiki does not answer the person's question - what then? By allowing them off to a search engine gives them a further opportunity. On TRIP we acknowledge that by auto-searching PubMed. My, biased, view is that TRIP can help wikipedia users - I suppose the trick is finding the right mechanism! --] 06:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

*I noticed addition and deletion of links to TRIP database. Although spamming is not accepted, the general concept of what was added to ] article about TRIP database was correct. TRIP is one of the best ways for researchers and other people involved in health care to find systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Unfortunately, the articles about EBM are not very well expanded, and are too few. But if they were expanded more, TRIP should have been linked from two or three of them, one of which being ]. Regarding this, I believe a link from that article to TRIP is appropriate. If you have no objections, I may re-add the link and information. <br>By the way TRIP is not a collation of links, but rather a meta-search engine for medical evidence. Instead of searching multiple resoureces (like MedLine, etc) for a clinical guideline, one may search TRIP for the keywords in question. On the other hand, TRIP has nothing in common with the other items in the ] and shouldn't be placed there. One should only add links to the main page of the TRIP database in relevant articles, not to the search result pages. ]—] 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

**I agree with Huji. A description of TRIP and a link in ] (and probably a few other articles) would be a very good idea. If I have time (and if Huji or Jonbrassey don't get there first) ... ] 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

**Whilst perhaps accepting useful to editors in researching for wikipedia articles, I'm still yet to be convinced that direct links in medical diseases articles appropriate (links in systemic review and EBM articles excepting). I accept this may partially/largely reflect fact I've just not encountered the database before, nor heard it mentioned in the multiple GP surgeries I have worked at as a locum. If we do add links to its EBM pages, then I'm happy to code up a suitable template :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

*TRIP was designed as a tool to help answer clinical questions for GPs and now more widely to answer a wider set of clinical questions. It started with the Welsh and more recently the . In that time me and my team have answered over 7,500 clinical questions, of which 95%+ were for GPs. I've got a fair empathy with the GPs information requirements and the problems they encounter answering their questions. I'm not hugely surprised that many haven't heard of TRIP as were subscription only from 2002 till Sept this year. However, popularity might not be the best measure of usefullness. For example I would have thought they'd all heard of Medline and the Cochrane Library ;-) --] 08:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::]! Did this explanation convince you? Why do you think a template is approrpiate? In a comparison, all other items in the current templates are web sites which offer information by themselves, or offer links to information that they cite; TRIP does none of them. It doesn't dirrectly cite information, it lists information cited by other web sites. It, however, applies a filter so you see portions of what they site.... If you are convinced, I will add the requried links inside the content of the articles in a week. ]—] 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::::No - still feel more use to editors trying to source material to write wikipedia articles than source to be cited within an article (one would cite the primary source that Trip might present as a summary). For some specific interpretation of evidence, then NLH Q&A Service might be a source, but underlying TRIP database is not yet notable enough for use as a widely occuring external link ] <sup> ] </sup> 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::: OK. So it is not going to be a "widely occuring external link" but what if we have an article named TRIP explaining the TRIP web site and its services, and we have some internal links to that article in place? Does it fit in your point of view? I guess it does, so please confirm it. ]—] 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

== AFD ==

] - please vote. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Just a quick heads-up that this timeline has been nominated for Featured List status. Please see ]. Thank you! --]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:I left a comment there. ]] <sub> ]</sub> 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Questionable chemotherapy articles ==

] & ] seem a bit questionable to me. The article on lowdose chemotherapy definitely seems non-NPOV. WikiDocs familiar with chemotherapy may want to check these over. --] (]) 06:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. The low dose chemo article is poor. It looks like a cut and paste from a patient advocacy website. Bad style apart from anything else: written in the second person. some of the assertions are wrong or grossly exaggerated eg: chemo causes constant vomiting, high risk of infective deaths, implied universal baldness. The science is dodgy too.
The cited abstract from the JCO in 2000 is actually from a reputable phase 2 study (I know one of the authors) which has subsequently not been taken up. Low dose oral 5FU is not used to my knowledge, since oral capecitabine came along.
Low/Moderate dose maintainance chemotherapy would make an interesting article. The current effort is not it.
Insulin Potentiation Therapy is pure dangerous quackery.
] 07:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)



== Barnstars ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To all CLINMED participants &ndash; today is '''Physician's Day''' ], and, both in honor of this day and in recognition of your tireless work towards making (and keeping, IMHO) Misplaced Pages a reliable source of medical information for laypersons and professionals alike, I award each and every one of you these shiny (rather rusty, actually) Original Barnstars!!!<br>Wear them with pride! (feel free to add one to your user page/talk page if you like. Go ahead, you know you earned it.) ] 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
|} |}
{|
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
| width = 60px | ]
|}

==]==

As of ], ], some of us have been fighting an editing war with some ''editors'' who think THC should be included in the Potential Treatments section. If you would like to add your comments to the discussion (and to review the article in general on our Peer Review page), we would welcome that. --] 03:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that several medical articles have been hit by links or very preliminary data promoting the use of THC as a medical treatment. It looks like an effort to push the ] agenda forward. Anyways, THC already exists as a FDA-approved medication: ]. --] (]) 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:The dopeheads are all over the place. I really do not understand it. Instead of just demented they'll be stoned ''and'' demented. Hardly an achievement. I strongly dispute the need to mention phase I-II studies unless the field near-universally aknowledges that this is promising. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. Unfortunately, it's difficult to inform people about being cautious when interpreting scientific studies, especially when they are either extremely enthusiastic or have an agenda. Also, the news media definitely doesn't help, since press releases tend to have a major problem with overlooking key details. --] (]) 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:Anything with cannabis immediately becomes news for its sheer urban legend potential. The only proven cannabinoid manipulation in clinical use is rimonabant. I'm happy for large phase III studies to be considered for inclusion, but anything less is misusing the general scope of Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== CFD ==

Please comment on ]. Medical categories are poorly maintained, and this one adds another layer of fudge. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:We should probably put one of those "diffusion" tags on some of our main categories and start cleaning them out, probably starting with ].--] <small>(])</small> 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Template fixing request ==

] could use some parserfunctions and cleanup, I tried to use it in ] but apart from displaying empty parameters, the content was pushed to the right... Maybe it could resemble our great ]?--] <small>(])</small> 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:I've applied the styling features of ] which allowed for the hospital name in large and section headers. The UK template has a series of location parameters (locale and county), yet this one has just a Location - would not a country parameter be useful ? I've added the necessary code to include the picture (see ]) and added width and caption options. Not sure what is supposed to be done with the Logo image. ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not yet sure how the articles have been set up to use teh template, but ] set the logo parameter as '''<nowiki>]</nowiki>''' whereas I've coded the template to take just '''<nowiki>Childrens logo.gif</nowiki>''' (see ) ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks David I really appreciate it!--] <small>(])</small> 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

===Hospital infobox merger proposal===
I think ] should be merged into ], we don't have specific templates for Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ, S.Africa etc etc and several UK hospitals already are under the somewhat US-Centric ]. In essence I think Template:Infobox hospital just needs some additional parameters or optional alternatives (similar to citation templates allowing 'author' vs 'first' & 'last', or 'date' vs 'year & 'month') to allow it to be less US-centric. I can do the necessary coding and have some ideas of how this should all work. Whilst I was bold enough to add a country code parameter, the other options could benefit from comment before I dive in :-) Please see ]. Thanks ] <sup> ] </sup> 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

== Project directory ==

Hello. The ] has recently updated the ]. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at ], listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding ], ], and ] are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. ] 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:Our listing is up-to-date.--] <small>(])</small> 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Public health ==

I think this article should be split into several other articles - it would be a good thing, I feel. Does anyone else agree
with this proposal?? ] 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:Let's discuss this at: ].--] <small>(])</small> 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== RFC on ] ==
I've had two different editors express concern about the ] page. One has asked for a broader set of viewpoints at ]. I've been reading through the material and will also be interested to hear what everyone thinks. ] 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Missing biographies ==

I discovered to my dismay that ] and ] still have no Misplaced Pages biography. For DSF there is a NAS memoir. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:I started one on Sackett and it is unapologetically focused on his Canadian connection-- ]-- where he did the work he is most famous for. I haven't read his book... but I think the in the ] is a must read for any one unfamiliar with the concept of the ]. ] <small>]|]</small> 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could I have a hand in depopulating ]. Enormous amounts of cruft have been unnecessarily categorised here. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

:Should we start with the subcats or clean the main one? ]] <sub> ]</sub> 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweep from the top level down. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::I worked on it over the weekend. I've copied the most common proper re-categorizations onto my user page if anyone is interested in a quick link! ] 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== External link check ==

Could someone please comment on the external link added anonymously to ] during this . The site appears to be the work of one US doctor. The Internet Archive the site isn't very active, with no significant update for two years. Thanks, ]°] 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== Merge/cleanup of ], ] ==

Hi there. I posted a note about a proposed merge of ] and ] at ], but I meant to post it here. I would appreciate if the resident Misplaced Pages medical experts would review the comments I made on that page. Thanks. ]
:I voiced my opinon on ] about this. In any case, I think the endocrinology stuff (in general) could be organized a bunch. Sorely missing, IMHO, is a series of templates that list all the ]s in their subclasses-- i.e. ]s, ]s-- and then a clear linking structure so that they are tied together. Beyond that we need an article that explains the concepts of hypo- & hyper- function--i.e. ]. Do we have an ] amongst us that would like to work on that? ] <small>]|]</small> 08:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

==Various articles for deletion==
For those interested:
*<s>] -] 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)</s>
*<s>] -] 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)</s>
*] --] <small>(])</small> 17:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

==Consolidation of the colon bits==
A while ago I tried to consolidate the colon articles under ]. I now see the parts of the colon are again out there. There is no known physiologic role the specializes the parts of the colon aside from the resevoir function of the rectum. If the colon is left in parts on wikipedia it is at risk for editing problems in the future. Any idea how to tie the organ back together? Steve ] 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Response at ]. --] 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

==Last call for comment Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade==
Not many people would seem to watch the ] or ]. I have a and then redirect Template:Infobox NHS Hospital to this. I would appreciate comment on choice of parameter names, e.g. 'HealthCare' vs. Funding, alternatives to 'Standards' (applies to developing countries with external accreditation certification), 'Region' vs Area (County in UK or US, but "County" as a term does not apply outside of UK & US). In the next day or so, I plan to implement the changes (see ]), so any final comments welcomed :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

==Breast implants==
I have refactored a long discussion here about breast implants that should be taking place on ]. It seems ] is in discussion with some users whose agenda is obvious (as is his own, being a plastic surgeon). I'm somewhat concerned that Misplaced Pages is being used as a soapbox, with the page presently turning into a anti-implant vehicle. I think the page looked fairly good when Droliver rewrote it, although the other parties would obviously dispute that.

I think the editing on ] is presently so heavy that no serious editor can be expected to keep up with it. I certainly cannot. There must be a way for the various parties to agree on some principles (e.g. not to cite case reports, lay press accounts and court proceedings where clinical studies are available). ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::Oliver claimed that his version of this article was Wiki clinic-med reviewed. I was trying to ascertain if it was. Clearly it was not. This is not surprising, however, since the sources used in the article you thought okay were misquoted and misrepresented, as well. <p>
::What concerns me and some other serious editors is that any medical professional would want to make a soapbox "FOR" implants -- to the point of misrepresenting the very studies he cites.<p>
::What you thought was okay was extremely pro-implant. Is that okay with you? Is it okay with you to misrepresent sources? It is not just the source that is used, it is blatantly misstating the studies that are cited. Objecting to that is not "anti-implant". It is just good - and honest - writing.] 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::A good place to start is to accurately quote or represent the sources an editor uses. It doesn't matter how well sourced an article is, if the sources are misrepresented, and facts made up out of whole cloth. If you are indeed a serious editor, then you would bother to read the objections. The editing was <b>not "heavy"</b> then, but nothing was done to correct these obvious errors. As a medical professional, you should be concerned about misstating studies. I pointed one out that was blatantly obvious, which you evidently did not read. That is not responsible for a serious editor who is willing to comment on the bias of an article.] 00:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)<p>

:::The talk page is turning into an attack page against ]. Concerns made on that page should be made in a civil fashion, without the need for disparaging comments -- ] 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)<p>
::::I agree that disparaging comments should not be made - against anyone. I believe that Dr. Zuckerman and I were responding to Oliver's attack on us. We surely should discuss misstatements of facts and sources. It would be good for everyone to be civil, as I stated on the discussion page. It is important to point out problems with the article, unless the majority (and doctors here) simply want to take one person's word for what is written. ] 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What one person calls "pro-implant" is regarded as established fact by others. I personally disbelieve claims of systemic illness due to implants, based on the many large studies in this field. I've got a deep antipathy to the uneducated saying that "uh, I feel unwell, it must be my immune system" without a shred of objective proof documenting immune dysfunction. Too many diseases have been mistakenly labeled "immune related" while the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

If you want that page to become stable, you will have to honestly ''negotiate'' with Droliver and other "pro-implant" editors, and not just cite more FDA reports. FDA reports are a surrogate for real science. Start by being nice to him (you may disagree on issues but he is a human being).

This page is to coordinate 100s of articles. I don't think the content of the breast implant page should be discussed over here.

Jance, did you previously edit as {{User|Jgwlaw}}? Your use of HTML markup suggests that you are. Could you please declare this openly on your userpage, as use of ] is generally discouraged on Misplaced Pages. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::You seem to misunderstand or did not read anything I wrote.<p>
::I will ask it again. Do you think it is acceptable to misstate a study's findings and conclusions? Is this the science to which you refer? I was not even talking about an FDA study, but a plastic surgery journal which Oliver cited as a source.<p>
::I was not asking for an article that said said or implied that implants cause systemic illness. If you look at my edits, you will see that. I am interested in presenting a balanced view - and I do not mean equal weight to both a mainstream and non-mainstream view. I mean accurately present sources cited, and the risks present - even the local complications that are undisputed. Does your opinion that implants are safe excuse an article that is full of (obvious) inaccuracies? Or does it matter anymore? Is Misplaced Pages now an advertisement? Do you refuse to look at an example because it was not written by a (medical) doctor? Oliver misquoted the rate of rupture from the source he cited. He has also misstated the FDA statement of approval - and yes, that is important, since he felt it important to mention the implants were approved - don't you think it important to say under what conditions or even mention that there were conditions? If the majority of Wikipedians or even medical doctors think it is acceptable to misquote sources or present only positive findings, then I will bow out. It would be a sad commentary, but clearly not worth my time to battle. ] 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)<p>
<p><br>

::I have asked for a Wiki clin-med review, if such a thing exists. Oliver stated that the article had undergone such a review in his edit summaries, when it had not. <p>

::One last comment. It is clear that you think silicone implants are safe. Ok, time will tell. I have a serious question to ask you - do you think it was merely coincidence that my previously abnormal ANA and ENA panel (blood tests) returned to normal and stayed normal after explant? That I am no longer disabled? Anything is possible, right? It could be coincidence, since lupus symptoms do come and go. But with a clear point at which the labs consistently became normal, stayed normal and health improved? I have changed no other variable and do not live an unhealthy lifestyle. Are blood tests pschogenic?<p>
::The fact is that there are many many women who have had implants for 20-30 years now, and there are NOT studies that study the rupture rate or effect of rupture over a long period of time. I never sued, or filed any settlement because I believed my implants were fine. Sadly, that was when I trusted doctors - with age and experience, that has changed. I was told by plastic surgeons not to worry. By the time I had the implants removed, they were 20 years old and had been ruptured for probably 5 years. There was a staph infection in my breast. There are no studies on this, JFW, and only one study that even addresses untreated rupture - and the age of the median implants and the number of implants were not very predictive. As to rupture rate --even the conservative rupture study that Oliver misquoted includes implants that are 3 years old. As you know, rupture rate with time is not a linear curve. <p>
::I have always been skeptical of the alternative medicide folks... For example, I think "magnetic bracelets" and the like are bullhocky on the order of pet rocks. And I believe that science is important in determining the soundness or safety of a product. As long as the science is not based on Murphy's corollary: First draw the graph, then plot the points. ] 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

::I am not a sockpuppet. I only have one account. I canceled jgwesq months ago.<p>

Good, at least we know it's you, Molly. If you think Droliver is misrepresenting the results of a study, please give him a chance to respond to these accusations on ], rather than explanting all his edits. I've urged him to enter into a reasonable conversation with yourself and Drzuckerman.

In medicine I've learnt not to mistake test results for symptoms. ANA/ENA positivity don't equal disease, even if the symptoms are somewhat similar to those diseases typically associated with ANA/ENA positivity. These markers have not been studied specifically as diagnostic markers for diseases that have not even been recognised, let alone have an agreed set of diagnostic criteria. Drug-induced lupus tends to be anti-histone positive anyway. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Droliver made significant changes to the article and then asked members of this Wikiproject to review and comment on the new version. He received some positive comments. In that sense, I do not disagree that his version is a consensus version and that substantial, large-scale edits should be discussed ''first'' and then performed after new consensus emerges. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)<p>
::To my knowledge and after my review, only a couple of you looked at it. I don't see it here. I don't see it as the way he represented it. And evidently, you didn't look at it very carefully.<p>
::As to changes -- Drolvier is the one who first completely changed the article, calling the other version "ham-handed". That said, I hope at this point Oliver, and the rest of us can talk. Please read what I wrote on the talk page. <p>
::Please don't be condescending - I do not think you were trying to be, but you must assume I am totally ignorant. I am quite aware that an ANA can be positive without a person having a rheum. disease. I am also aware that lupus can be drug induced. My board certified rheuamtologists fully explained all of this -- and diagnosed me with SLE, because of my clinical symptoms and consistently abnormal labs (both high ANA and several specific antibodies, including anti-Smith which is specific for lupus). I had photosensitive rashes, oral sores, a malar rash, and many swollen joints that were extremely painful - in my hands, fingers, wrists, ankles, elbows... I had protein in my urine, and was sent to a nephrologist. I had consistent low grade fevers. I did not test positive for drug-induced lupus. I still take plaquenil, and was taking prednisone. Not one of my doctors believed this was 'drug induced'. <p>
::The problem is that the existing studies - all the many of them - have not taken a set of women with implants 20 years old and older, that are ruptured, and studied the effect. It hasn't been done. That is my objection. I am fully aware that many many women do not have rheumatological illnesses, with implants 5, 10, 15 years old. There are a growing number of women with implants 15, 20, 25, 30 years old who are having problems, who are not studied and have never been studied. I did not begin to have any symptoms at all until my implants were 15 years old - that was also about the time I had a mammogram that my doctors and I now think ruptured the implants. For the next five years, I grew progressively sicker, with rashes, hives, and finally lupus and MS (I don't even consider Hashimoto's since that is fairly common in middle aged women). For five years, I never once considered that my implants might be a problem. It was not until another lawyer - who is also a medical doctor - asked me about them, that I finally went for an MRI which showed an intracapsular rupture (the rupture was, in fact, very much extracapsular). Since my explant, my blood tests have returned to normal and remained normal. As someone with a science and math background (although admittedly not an MD), I believe it is foolish for doctors to write off such women and their symptoms based on studies that do not test this group of women. In fact, it is truly disturbing that any doctor would care so little -- and have such little curiosity about this.] 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)<p>
::And following up on the above, it is amazing that the version you thought was "fine" had clear misstatements of the studies cited, and didn't even mention that women should follow up after implantation with MRIs. I really want to know if doctors, FDA, Health Canada, Britain - and whoever - will recommend to women that they replace their implants every 10 years, since that seems to be the only age at which there is any concern with rupture. My guess is that plastic surgeons, and some doctors, won't -- even though at least in the US, the FDA is supposedly requiring manufacturers to inform women that implants are not lifetime devices and will need to be replaced (the version you thought was fine did not mention this either.) ] 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

== Stablepedia ==

''Beginning cross-post.''
:See ]. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ]] 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Latest revision as of 22:11, 18 January 2011

Soft redirect to:Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine
This page is a soft redirect.

Shortcut

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11



 Navigation:

Current threads moved and merged into WT:MED

Stop!
Stop!
 WikiProject Clinical medicine has been merged into WikiProject Medicine. Please use this page for all further discussion. Thank you.