Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 13 August 2012

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

• WT:MED

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Please! Help! with Dissociative identity disorder

Expertise is badly needed. Input would be greatly appreciated. It's currently at peer review. Help! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear what the issue is... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 04:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Beware. My attempt at input at the previous DID thread here resulted in considerable incivility, starting with the deletion of my comments and escalating to an RFC/U and not one but two ANI's. BitterGrey (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Because you didn't actually talk about any real issues on the DID article and instead used the occasion to make personal attacks on editors you don't like. DreamGuy (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Expertise is, of course, always welcome, but thanks in part to the input already received last time around the article is in much better shape than it was. If Mathew has serious concerns he should address them in concrete terms on the article's talk page so they can be discussed. DreamGuy (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked Casliber to take a look and he said he would (though I know he's very busy). He is responsible for Major depressive disorder, and a major contributor to Schizophrenia two of the few featured articles on a psychiatric diagnosis. (Another, Reactive attachment disorder, he also was a contributor.) Let's hope! This is a contentious diagnosis and wikipedia should have the best article on the subject that it can produce. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc James has also agreed to take a look. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Both editors, and more are welcome - no matter the disputes, the page needs attention and expertise from experienced wikipedians and people used to dealing with medical topics. Thanks to Doc James and Casliber for stepping up. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

groan.....still, reading about the mentions below gives me heart....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of 24 pediatric otolaryngology diagnoses articles and mention in the Signpost

There is a section in the Signpost that summarizes this study: doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026. The study says we could improve our accuracy in regards to the 24 most common pediatric otolaryngology diagnoses the authors selected. Biosthmors (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the study, but I would like to see it if anyone could email it to me. Also maybe we should list the 24 articles (and errors/omissions if listed) here. Biosthmors (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These are the topics covered in the study. Some were red links and I have just redirected them to a synonym or an article with a section covering the topic. I'd appreciate a second opinion on those redirects, particularly the last one, Lymphatic malformation → Cystic lymphatic malformation.

and the two textbooks against which the articles are measured are

• K.J. Lee, Essential Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008 June.
• P.W. Flint, B.H. Haughey, V.J. Lund, J.K. Niparko, M.A. Richardson, K.T. Robbins, et al., Cummings Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 5th ed., Mosby, 2010 March.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cystic lymphatic malformation

I'd certainly suggest either
a. retitling Cystic lymphatic malformation as Cystic lymphangioma,
or
b. merging Cystic lymphatic malformation with the Lymphangioma page, which is the current redirect for Cystic lymphangioma.
Note: "Cystic lymphangioma" is both the corresponding MeSH term and a much more common name (11 vs 1476 PubMed results). However, the current Cystic lymphatic malformation page doesn't mention the term "cystic lymphangioma".

That leaves the small question about what to do about the topic of "lymphatic malformations" as a whole .
- Do we need a separate Lymphatic abnormalities page?
- Or, specifically for the malformations, Congenital lymphatic abnormalities?
—MistyMorn (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold. I'm going out now and will check back tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think more informed feedback is needed on both these points. Thoughts? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Otitis media

Otitis media, A couple of years ago while I was carrying out a major edit to the dyslexia article, I was almost involved in related editing war regarding Otitis Media with Effusion (OME), such is the politics of dyslexia. There is a great deal of scope to improve the content regarding both OME and Acute Otitis Media. My Pubmed Otitis Media Collection of research papers may help. dolfrog (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sensorineural hearing loss

Sensorineural hearing loss you may find my PubMed Sensorineural Hearing Loss collection useful to provide much needed citations dolfrog (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed email to corresponding author

Hello Peter

I'm writing on behalf of Wikiproject Medicine regarding your paper in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: A comparison of three most referenced websites." We were wondering if you would be willing to let us see your reviewers' evaluations of Misplaced Pages articles, so that we can correct any errors (in particular) and omissions.

Regards --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps also a short letter/reply to the journal notifying readers that it is being worked upon and inviting otolaryngologists to participate? --WS (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah didn't see the conversation below. --WS (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, WS. Since there wasn't any other support for my proposed email, I've sent it in my voice. I'll report back if I get a response :

Hello Peter

I'm a Wikiproject Medicine volunteer and I'm writing regarding your paper in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: A comparison of three most referenced websites." We appreciate and highly value the suggestions of experts. I was wondering if you would be willing to let me see your reviewers' evaluations of Misplaced Pages articles, so that I can address any errors (in particular) and omissions.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for sending the email. Biosthmors (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Other recent literature

This study (doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X) mentions some strengths in our schizophrenia and depression articles, while this letter (doi:10.1136/bmj.e4275) in BMJ asks "Should clinicians edit Misplaced Pages to engage a wider world web?". Maybe we should reply to the letter in BMJ and/or the article about the 24 pediatric oncology articles after we make some fixes. Biosthmors (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes would be supportive of that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't access the BMJ from home, could someone possibly email the letter to me? ahcoleecugmail.com --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done —MistyMorn (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some "Recent Rapid Responses" have already been posted here. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I emailed the article and the 2 rapid responses. Biosthmors (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should compose a concise WP:MED response to the BMJ letter, and take the opportunity to briefly explain WP:MEDRS, how WP:MED works, and point them to m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine if those aren't covered in the BMJ letter. (I haven't read it yet.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You've now missed 4 subsequent issues. With luck someone else has replied by now. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seem to have been 2 responses so far. What is your point, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Health information on the internet is a relevant concern for general medical journals such as the BMJ (and a few weeks won't change that). Misplaced Pages is a special case in some ways, both because of its crowdsourced (participatory information sharing) characteristics and its high profile on the internet. Communicating thoughtfully with the scientific medical community through journals such as the BMJ can only be a good thing, imo. As regards responses to this particular BMJ letter, these have to go through the online "Rapid response" . This is open to anyone, and it might be a good, relatively informal way of clarifying some of the issues raised in the Letter, such as the apparent eccentricity of citing a New York Times article about a major study rather than the study itself (per Anthony's suggestion). But it might also provide a way for the Project to communicate its broader plans -- I guess there's a fair likelihood the BMJ editorial committee could consider a more "official" submission of this sort for publication in its print edition. 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed response to BMJ letter

Response to Kint and Hart, "Should clinicians edit Misplaced Pages to engage a wider world web?" BMJ 2012;345:e4275 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4275 (Published 3 July 2012)

Up to 80% of internet users in developed countries search the internet for health information - problems, symptoms, diseases and treatments - and a Misplaced Pages page is often at or near the top of search engine results for an English medical term. Misplaced Pages medical editors take this prominent position very seriously and have put in place systems and policies to monitor and improve the accuracy of Misplaced Pages's medical content.

Using a frequently updated page listing recent changes to Misplaced Pages medical articles, a team of volunteers, in many time zones, constantly checks the quality of sources supporting new content, and confirms the content is evidence-based, current and relevant to the article in question.

Misplaced Pages content is governed by policies and guidelines. Content must reflect "reliable sources." For health-related content, "reliable" usually means recent expert reviews published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals; recent graduate-level textbooks; current professional, national or international guidelines (e.g., ICD 10, DSM); etc. Content that is not supported by such sources may be deleted from the encyclopedia. Well-sourced, relevant content is rarely removed.

WikiProject Medicine is an informal group of physicians, researchers and other volunteers who share a commitment to ensuring that Misplaced Pages medical articles are comprehensive, reliable and understandable. We are presently establishing a non-profit corporation aimed at making all current medical knowledge freely available online to all people in their chosen language. Discussions regarding the nature and aims of that body are underway, and input from physicians is welcome.

We understand the suspicion with which many physicians view Misplaced Pages, but given its prominence, the fact that their patients and carers and many of their colleagues and students use Misplaced Pages medical articles, and given the systems and policies in place to monitor quality, we hope that physicians might consider writing, reviewing or correcting a Misplaced Pages medical article. The policies and guidelines are a little elaborate at times, but the volunteers at WikiProject Medicine are always willing to help and guide. Articles or paragraphs that reflect the current scholarly consensus, are based on reliable sources and are relevant will be watched over and defended by medical volunteers, and are often consulted by hundreds or thousands of readers per day.

References

1. Laurent MR, Vickers TJ (2009). "Seeking health information online: does Misplaced Pages matter?". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 16 (4): 471–9. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105.
   
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MEDRS
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:MED
5. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Wikimedia_Medicine

This is a first draft. Suggestions? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just my 2c, no more... I would suggest sending that sort of response in an unofficial capacity, as a personal consideration from an individual member of the Project (eg by rewording "We are presently..." to "Misplaced Pages is presently...", and "We understand..." to something like "I think we all understand..."; then maybe leaving "we hope that physicians..." as it stands).

Personally, I feel that a more official response from the Project would do well to acknowledge openly some of the real underlying issues regarding Misplaced Pages's prominent role as a source of health information online, showing that we recognise their complexity and are working to address our current limitations in ways that are both ambitious and realistic. More generally, I sense that the Project is on the cusp of a sea change, and that part of that change should involve the Project engaging with the EBM community (eg via journals such as BMJ) on its terms rather than just (or mainly) ours. As I say, just 2 small cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it's important to specify in the "statement of competing interests" membership of the Misplaced Pages Medicine Project. This in itself should help contextualise any response from an individual member(s) of the Project. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kint and Hart's letter demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how anonymous editing works and the constraints it imposes on sourcing. Although they may be prepared to uncritically endorse a particular primary study based on their own expertise, we don't have the luxury of deferring to any editor's claims of authority (as the Essjay case clearly demonstrated). Nor are we constrained to be "up-to-the-minute" in tracking novel reports; we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, a digest of accepted knowledge, and have no remit to stand in place of medical journals, where it is appropriate for primary research to be documented.

Rant over: I'm not suggesting that we need to make those points so forcefully, but I do believe that it is important to try to make the nature of Misplaced Pages clearer, in the interest of reducing the chances of outside groups "talking past" us because of their inaccurate assumptions. --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I think that's an important point. Also, it doesn't take a sub-speciality expert to compile quality tertiary source information on a particular topic. I'd also thought of addressing some of those more specific points in a separate individual response to their letter. But I'm going to be out of action for a couple of days. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no hurry. I think your and RexxS's points are well-made. I was very aware as I wrote the above it was far from perfect and invite you both, and everyone else, to propose a draft. I think that a letter endorsed by many regulars here would be more authoritative (and probably just better) than any individual response I could contrive, though I'd encourage individual responses too, if something you consider important doesn't get into the group letter. Whatever. BMJ has essentially opened the discussion, and we should join it somehow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to convey is that there's room for multiple responses from individual members of the Project clarifying specific points (as, for example, in your draft). Yes, a collective letter would certainly be more authoritative, but equally certainly more taxing: it would constitute a peer-review publication in its own right which could be cited in the future as direct or indirect evidence of the Project's position (and perhaps also attitude) at this juncture towards many wider issues. Some caution required here, imo. In haste, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I see this as an opportunity to address a lot of physicians, and want to make the most of it. I fear that a clutch of disparate individual responses may result in the journal's editor picking one less relevant response over three or four crucial points for publication. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As with any source, a reader gets more value from a Misplaced Pages article if they understand something of the mechanism that produced it. The simple act of clicking on "View history" will reveal recent revisions to an article, but readers often simply do not know this. It is perhaps the single best tool that diligent readers have for assuring themselves they are not being mislead by a vandal. I'd suggest adding a reminder to that effect. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Other possible comments:

Whether you like it or not Misplaced Pages is what your patients, students and colleagues are reading. The quality of its content is hit and miss. But you are able to do something about it. We at Wikiproject Medicine welcome you to join us and help improve the quality of the health care content people are reading. Currently we have about 24,000 article in English, which are viewed more than 200 million times a month. Misplaced Pages is currently in 284 languages and we are actively working not only to improve the content in English but also in all the other languages of the world.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

With some corrections, I have revised the suggested wording to produce the following. (Changes are underscored.)

Whether you like it or not Misplaced Pages is what your patients, students and colleagues are reading. The quality of its content is sporadic. But you are able to do something about it. We at WikiProject Medicine welcome you to join us and help improve the quality of the health care content people are reading. Currently we have about 24,000 articles in English, which are viewed more than 200 million times a month. Misplaced Pages is currently in 284 languages and we are actively working to improve the content, not only in English but also in all the other languages of the world.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to Biosthmors for drawing this to our attention. Anthonyhcole, I have a couple of comments to make about your proposed letter, but I'm not sure that "Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine" is the best venue to hash out a letter to the journal. Google Docs may be a better approach. Axl ¤ 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to wait a day or so for more input from others here before adding anything. My proposal was just a talking point and I'm quite prepared for a group letter to be very different from that. We should address the authors' specific concerns, but, if we can do so concisely, I'd like us to convey some other essential info' - but I'm not sure what that should be. The more suggestions the better, and this venue, for now, will attract more suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is tempting to send them the text of Template:Sofixit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it seems like there's a desire to reply as a Project, which I fully recognise is the right thing. My concern, largely stemming from my experiences as a medical writer, has been to give some thought about how best to reply. For instance, would it be good to start by welcoming the interest in the Project? Imo, that Letter, however critical, does provide a useful starting point for a dialogue. We want the EBM and broader medical community to engage with us; I feel it's good for us to consider potential ways of engaging in the other direction. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I see a positive 2011 BMJ editorial on the Project (Signpost) drew a creative personal response from User:Sharkli in addition to her more recent one here . —MistyMorn (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

An IP editor has been adding multiple copyright violations to medical articles: 199.46.198.231. I've reverted some, but don't have time to do go through their entire past work, was wondering if someone with more time now can have a look. Yobol (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

...and it looks like Novangelis has already taken care of it. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it has continued, I have filed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright violations and plagiarized public domain content.Novangelis (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Global Health Library

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the following resource.

• WHO | The Global Health Library

—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Disorders of skin appendages

Template:Disorders of skin appendages seems too big. See Template talk:Disorders of skin appendages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is excellent and comprehensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We are victims of our own success. Brendan made a huge effort a while ago to cover every skin disorder in existence as part of his aim to improve the dermatology area of WPMED. The List of cutaneous conditions and this navigation template are natural results of all that work. It merely looks big because many other areas of WPMED are not as comprehensively covered yet. Give us enough time & volunteers and we'll have lots of huge templates to complain about! --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Common external links

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in User:Phil Boswell/common els.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This link goes to a list of external links purported to be used in multiple articles. This project is not described and it is hard for me to guess at what application or use it might have, or how it relates to WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the link at Misplaced Pages talk:Database reports#Popular/duplicated external links (version of 06:05, 3 August 2012). The original poster expressed a desire "to be able to track down groups of external links which are duplicated across many articles". More details are in that discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the URLs are links to Pubmed abstracts. This basically indicates that some references are used in more articles than one. Provided the references are high-quality secondary sources, this is of no direct concern to this project. JFW | T@lk 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Several pages have inappropriate generic links to PubMed. I have deleted those. More importantly, this list, if regularly updated, has the potential to flag up linkspam from single-purpose accounts. Axl ¤ 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

TRIP Database

This is really a great website for finding high quality sources. All one needs to do is type in the subject and it will bring up high quality references. For example a search for migraine pulls up . This site is interested in working more closely with us. Suggestions on how to make it even better...

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A review/evaluation in Evidence Based Medicine concludes "We recommend this resource for those seeking pre-appraised evidence, reviews, and guidelines." Yup!

On its limitations: "Unfortunately, the search engine does not enhance the search terms entered by users who type in synonyms or medical subject headings. We found that searching by title and text yielded too many irrelevant hits, but this finding may represent our lack of experience with the search engine. Performance of quick searches on specific topics using TRIP can be hit or miss because success is dependent on the content of the database."

—Misty (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried it out briefly today. My impression is that I could find it moderately useful mainly to locate publication types (web, news items etc) not on PubMed. —Misty_(MORN) 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Neoplastic drug resistance

This article from the BBC indirectly got me wondering whether we have an issue with neoplastic drug resistance. The Drug resistance page currently seems heavily skewed towards antibiotics, especially as regards the Mechanisms. One quick fix might involve importing material from the Neoplastic resistance section of the Multiple drug resistance page. I also feel that the Chemotherapy page should somehow have a bit more on resistance (in summary style?). Thoughts? —Misty (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article on chemotherapy introduces the topic by saying that it is treatment with a antineoplastic drug, but antineoplastic drug redirects to chemotherapy. It is not appropriate to have definitions redirect to each other. I might speculate that the reason why neoplastic drug resistance is not featured in other articles is that it is not possible to do so when the term is not defined in an article on Misplaced Pages. I am not sure where to begin on this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make my concern clear. As regards Chemotherapy, I just felt there should be a bit more on resistance (if only a "See also template" or a wikilink something). On the other hand, I would have expected to find more more mention of chemotherapy (and perhaps also insulin therapy) on the main Drug resistance page, where the opening sentence of the lede doesn't seem to be reflected in the main article. Does that make more sense? —Misty_(MORN) 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, I think you will find part of what you're looking for in Primary drug resistance, which MastCell deleted earlier this year because the HIV-related parts were a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dreadful science reporting - too little background. The study in question is doi:10.1038/nm.2890, and Fran Balkwill's commentary seems to have been directly to the press rather than in the journal.

doi:10.2741/3070 and doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e318212dd3d seem good secondary sources that could serve as a scaffold for novel content on chemotherapy resistance. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the BBC article at all... My query was principally about the Drug resistance page. Surely we need more about chemotherapy issues etc here? —Misty_(MORN) 19:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Help Me Make An Article on the University of Louisville School of Medicine!!!!

Hi everybody!

I'm VERY new to Misplaced Pages editing (been surfing for a while though) and am creating an article for the University of Louisville School of Medicine. It's the only M.D. granting institution in the United States that doesn't have an article http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States!

The University of Louisville School of Medicine is tremendously historic. Here are some notable innovations: World's first self-contained artificial heart transplant 2001 World's first successful hand transplant 1999 Development of Pap Smear 1970 Development of Autotransfusion 1935 First Emergency Room 1911

I've started it. Can someone help me! 50.30.172.228 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! The article is at University of Louisville School of Medicine. You are getting excellent feedback in the edit summaries and there are problem templates on the main page describing what needs to happen to get the article to Misplaced Pages norms. Consider going to the Misplaced Pages WP:TEAHOUSE if you have specific editing questions. I recommend that you create a useraccount and set up a userpage so that people can have conversations with you when you have questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time! Can anyone work on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviekatz (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Who does have time? Consider asking one of your personal friends to volunteer their time. It is really difficult to convince strangers on the Internet to volunteer time for you if you will not volunteer your own time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Natural Medicine

Hello, I have been away from Misplaced Pages for quite a while, however I may return. I am wondering if natural medicine related info is under the scope of this WikiProject, as well as what the guidelines are for things like this. The goals section makes it sound like this would be within scope. Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative medicine.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Welcome back. It rather depends what you mean by "Natural Medicine". Evidence-based medicine is of course based on an applied knowledge of natural processes, but all too frequently people get the idea that all forms of complimentary and alternative medicine are "natural" and somehow "better" or "safer". Those ideas find little support in evidence when examined closely. wp:WikiProject Alternative medicine operates a bit differently than wp:WikiProject Medicine, but there is some overlap. Naturopathy for instance has a foot in both camps: it comes under WikiProject Alternative medicine, but also under wp:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. We have to look closely at the quality of sources for medicine- and for CAM-related articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree with LeadSongDog. A large proportion of the most succesful medicines have their origins in biological substances. Statins as fungal metabolites, ACE inhibitors from the venom of Bothrops jararaca, vinca alkaloids from the Madagaskar periwinkle, many antibiotics from fungi etc. The thing is, once such a substance has a good evidence base it becomes mainstream medicine. In that sense, "natural medicine" is a bit of a tautology. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I mean herbal medicine, if that clarifies anything. If not, then I mean using plants, basically the way you pick them, maybe soaked or whatever, for treatment of disease. So yeah, applied science, but it doesn't have to have any papers published about it. Basically used as-is, not extracting it like the drug industry. Arlen22 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are whole journals devoted to herbal medicine. You might also be interested in traditional medicine. Also, a good deal of self-care might be relevant, such as ginger or peppermint teas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Alternative medicine is any practice claiming to heal "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine." It may be based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than on scientific evidence." Based on that definition, which I don't feel includes either psychology or ?physiology?, I would prefer to stay with a more scientific type of project. This isn't a proposal or request by any means, I'm just trying to get a feel of things. Would herbal medicine be under the scope of this WikiProject or not? Arlen22 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The evidence-based parts of natural or herbal medicine would fall under WP:MED, though generally I would call it simply "medicine" (others would call it an uncertain dose of an ingredient with unknown efficacy, often accompanied by pharmaceutical adulterations). Also, your definition of "alternative medicine" is off - alternative medicine is basically any approach promoted as medicine that lacks acutal proof of safety and effectiveness. By definition it is "unproven claims". Proven claims, to repeat myself, are simply medicine as they are incorporated into the treatment recommendations of doctors.

To answer your original question - I would say "natural medicine" doesn't fall under WP:MED since it is more marketing than science. The proven parts of "natural medicine" are simply medicine. The unproven parts are alternative "medicine" (and really more like bare assertions). However, the debunking of alt med claims would probably fall within WP:MED - in particular because making medical claims requires WP:MEDRS and alt med (again) by definition lacks such sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We generally show an interest in the general subjects (you'll find our group listed as supporting the main Alternative medicine article) but not the "minor" subjects, like whichever company's herbal blend is being discussed in this week's news.

But if you have questions or ideas about a particular article, you can ask here. The worst that will happen is that no one will be interested enough to reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello to everyone! I am a new member of the Wiki Medicine portal. I'm going to contribute to articles related to oncology, molecular genetics as well as endocrine surgery with focus on post-Chornobyl thyroid tumors. Regards, --Andrux7 (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Andrux7! We are certainly glad to have you, and hope you stay around for a long time. I'm also interested in oncology-related articles, and although I don't have the kind of "Wiki-expertise" that most of the folks around here do, or a lot of time these days, I would be pleased to help you in any way I can, or refer you to one of the many geniuses around here.

As an aside, I have a copy of the most recent World Health Organization Histological Classification of Thyroid Tumors. Let me know if you want me to look something up for you in there.

One of the other things I greatly enjoy is copyediting, so please let me know if you would like a fresh pair of eyes on any articles or text that you create (or run across) by leaving me a request here or at my Talk page. Thanks for your help with this important project!

NOTE: I'm also posting this to Andrux7's talk page

With very best regards:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome indeed Andrux7. Please drop by here if you need any assistance. There's usually a couple of us on call. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot running

Aloha. I'm currently reviewing Barefoot running, a GAN. If someone could take a look at Barefoot_running#Health_and_medical_implications and scan the article for any unusual claims when they have free time, I would appreciate it. No hurry on this. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a quick glance through the section and have made a couple of minor copyedits.

The style seems generally good, imo. A few points might gain from better contextualization. For example, the reader is currently just told that "oxygen consumption was found to be approximately 4% higher in shod versus barefoot runners", while the cited secondary source helpfully adds "An increase in oxygen consumption of ~4% is of little importance to the recreational runner, but the competitive athlete would notice a major effect on running speed". (Also, try wikilinking oxygen consumption rather than just oxygen.)

As regards sourcing, I notice the focus often seems to be mainly on primary studies, as commented in sources not always listed on PubMed. Here are a few suggestions for some reliable secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS, which aren't currently cited:

• One focused review that I think certainly deserves consideration is Barefoot running claims and controversies: a review of the literature, Jenkins and Cauthon (2011).
• Another recent review article, by Vormittag et al (2009), although not specifically about barefoot running, may also be worth a look.
• Overall, I feel sure it's right to exercise caution in the tone, both here and also in the footwear section, given the relative poverty overall of the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of preventive interventions, as evaluated in this 2011 Cochrane review.
• A recent RS by Lieberman which may be of more theoretical interest is a hypothesis-type review paper, What we can learn about running from barefoot running: an evolutionary medical perspective, Lieberman (2012).

A final thought: I wonder whether the heading Health and medical implications is unnecessarily strong given the relative lack of reliable evidence. How about Health and medical considerations?

@Viriditas: please feel free to copy & paste this elsewhere, as appropriate.

—Misty_(MORN) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is a bit biased towards barefoot running. Possible detriments of running with shoes spans two paragraphs while detriments of running barefoot gets a sentence. My two cents. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Issues of undue weight may be addressed by appropriate use of reliable secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS. The last paragraph in particular, beginning The running shoe..., seems to focus too directly on the outcomes of certain primary studies. As suggested above, Jenkins and Cauthon (2011) "Barefoot running claims and controversies: a review of the literature" definitely deserves consideration. The 2011 Cochrane review on preventive interventions should also help contextualize, at least, the relative strength of the evidence in the sector. I also feel that Lieberman's research could be presented in a more encyclopedic way: his recent hypothesis article could help here.

A related concern may be use of so-called peacock words. I've tagged a "many" in the opening paragraph, and "much scientific and medical interest" and "often been blamed" are other suspects.

On a more down to earth level perhaps, I suppose it's common sense that going out to do some pavement jogging barefoot isn't going to be a terribly good idea in many parts of the world, though the images seem to show people doing just that.

Hope that helps, —Misty_(MORN) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia

We need editors to decide what to do with this article. The article creator and the article's deletion nominator have a very volatile history, and it seems that they shouldn't even be interacting. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a medical issue.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that some people would say that all sexual orientations/preferences fall within the medical specialty of psychiatry, and it looks like the discussion could desperately use contributions from people who just don't really care one way or the other about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

True, the DSM did get ride of homosexuality in DSM 3 but I think other paraphilias are still there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The DSM got rid of homosexuality because the experts (the majority anyway) concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or paraphilia. But sexual orientation and sexuality topics deal with mental health regardless, which makes them a medical issue. I obviously agree with WhatamIdoing. How is the gynandromorphophilia topic not a medical issue when some people consider this attraction to be a mental disorder, when it is assocated with gender identity disorder, and when sources on it are expected to pass WP:MEDRS? I don't understand why this project is generally restrictive in what it considers to be a medical topic, cutting off topics that are most assuredly considerded "medical" by many experts. The fact that it is a "medical issue" is why the deletion discussion is partially speaking of it in medical terms. 109.123.100.144 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a glance at the article and I didn't see any medical claims/information. If experts think it is a medical disorder, then consider finding some reliable medical sources that say as much and include them in the article? Biosthmors (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

On the general question, a WikiProject is a group of editors, and we get to pick what we want to work on, just like any other group of volunteers. If we were to decide that we wanted to work on Hello Kitty, then we could declare that it was within our scope. If we decide that we don't want to work on Cancer, then we could declare that it's not within our scope. We generally prefer to have a sensible scope, but we're permitted to make whimsical decisions, and defining some types of sex-related articles (and most anatomy-related articles) as being outside of our scope is one of our occasional variations from a strictly predictable scope.

None of which says that we wouldn't accept this, or that you don't need help. I hope that some people with more knowledge than I have will look into the question about whether it should be merged into a larger/related topic or not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct that academic sexology traditionally comes out of psychiatry; however, the greatest relevance in medicine is actually for primary care and behavioural medicine: That is, knowing patients' sexual orientations and behaviours helps in the assessment potential health needs and risk factors. Gynandromorphophilia, as these RS's keep saying, is one the ways in which patient's say that they are heterosexual, but whose behaviour indicates that there are other relevant factors at play. Such cases are an important part of diversity issues in the practice of medicine. It is one of the issues for which I am called upon to lecture to residents. — James Cantor (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Biosthmors, it seems that you are defining "medical" in the same restrictive sense that this project generally does. But besides what others in this section have stated about what "medical" extends to, see the Psychiatry article and the Sexology article linked above.

WhatamIdoing, I get your point. Although I don't believe that including Hello Kitty within the project's scope and declaring that cancer is outside of its scope would go over well. I just feel that a project devoted to medical topics should be open to covering all medical topics, instead of a "We only cover certain ones, with the possibility of addressing others" type of thing. And since this project is limited in that way, at least make that very clear on the project page so that the "wrong type" of issues aren't brought here. I know that WP:MEDRS is a guideline and not a WikiProject, but it would be silly if it was limited to only certain medical topics. And Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles shows other topics that fall under the medical scope. I'm not saying that you should work on medical topics that you don't want to work on. I'm saying that the project shouldn't act as though the term "medical" is only or generally limited to physical disorders and diseases. And looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anatomy, I see that it is not very active and that merging it with WP:MED is suggested because WP:MED is active and anatomy is a medical topic (such as Human heart). Not including these other medical topics within WikiProject Medicine's scope can cause editors who join this project and are interested in working on all types of medical issues to generally ignore anything that doesn't have to do with a physical disorder or disease because they see that the project marks it as "not our problem." I believe that that's why other medical issues continue to be overlooked or turned away by this project. 109.123.100.110 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I have removed many of the sex and anatomy related article from this project is a while ago a journal published a list of our 20 most viewed medical articles and at that point in time they included: sex, anal sex, vagina, clitoris, and penis among others. The author used this as a way to discredit our work. We want to attract academics and concentrating on diseases will help in having people take us seriously. I am involved in a number of WikiProjects as are most of the people who edit here. Nothing says one just has to edit articles within Wikiproject Medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that not long after I changed my text about the Human heart article, you removed Human heart from this project. I can understand removing most of the sex articles. But to remove articles like Human heart? I very much doubt that most academics would argue that the topic of the heart isn't a medical issue; it's largely a medical issue. I also doubt that most academics would argue that mental disorders aren't a medical issue, especially since they are sometimes labeled diseases as well. Anorexia nervosa is both a mental and physical disorder, but the only reason you've probably left it as part of the project is because it is a physical disorder. All I'm saying is that physical disorders and diseases ("disease" as separate from mental disorders unless we're talking about a physical disease that affects the brain...such as Autism) are not the only things that are covered by the word "medical." Just because a journal is narrow in its definition of what medical means, it doesn't mean we have to be as well. And although topics like the penis and vagina are more medical to me than they are sexual, meaning there are more medical issues or a combination of sexual and medical issues regarding them than just sexual issues alone, I don't much mind those topics being excluded. You know, since you've explained about medical journals maybe not taking Misplaced Pages seriously, even though this site is generally discredited anyway. But topics like the human heart and mental disorders should be branded by this project. You say "Nothing says one just has to edit articles within Wikiproject Medicine." But my point is that this project generally turns away any issue that isn't completely or mostly medical or isn't medical in the restrictive sense of relating to a physical disease, just like you did when I brought the topic of this section here...despite its ties to the medical community. But it is what it is. I know that my comments on all of this aren't going to change how this project generally works. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy is removed because there's already a perfectly good little group, WikiProject Anatomy, that supports those articles. There is no need for us to work on everything that has some connection to medicine, and we don't tag anything that we aren't willing to work on (per official guideline, BTW).

If you want to see our current guidance on what to tag and what not to tag, then have a look at WP:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't turn away from reviewing (above) the health aspects of Bare foot running, even though some might see no immediately obvious connection with Medicine. But where would one start here? I really wouldn't know. An unusually difficult request, imo. —MistyMORN 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Occipital nerve stimulation

This showed up on NPP, was hoping someone who understood the jargon could scan it and make sure it's okay as an article. Cheers, Hiding T 15:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While it has a few issues to be addressed, I think it's a pretty good start. Thanks for the heads up - good eye!

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Input appreciated at venowave

As mentioned at Talk:Venowave, I've proposed redirecting the article. Biosthmors (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merged as per the suggestions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Source question

Greetings all, this might be better kicked to a RSN posting so feel free to let me know. I was going to use this article to add some info to the clozapine article. However despite being pubmed indexed, it's published by Bentham which has a reputation for being a bit vanity-ish. Does anyone here have any comments? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The paper meets the WP:MEDRS guideline. It is suitable for use as a reference. However, from reading the abstract, it appears to be promoting the use of clozapine. I believe that clozapine has fallen out of favour due to the risk of neutropenia. Axl ¤ 22:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just means that people need to have frequent blood tests so that the med can be stopped if this side effect occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But if another medication gives the same benefit without the need for frequent blood tests.... Axl ¤ 22:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We have this 2009 Cochrane review Essali, A (2009 Jan 21). "Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD000059. PMID 19160174. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Clozapine is most definitely in active use, and has benefits beyond the atypical antipsychotics. The Raja article, however, seems a bit one-sided. Anything wrong with Cochrane? JFW | T@lk 07:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not all MEDRS are equal... Surely a Cochrane review addressing the clinical question of interest (as here, it would seem) should generally come out at, or very near to, the top of the pile for best evidence? I feel this could be clarified a bit in WP:MEDASSESS. —Misty_(MORN) 10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally I'd rely on Cochrane whenever available (natch!), I'm actually using Raja to fill out some adverse effects and contraindications information. I don't plan on touching on efficacy. As far as efficacy goes, I think there are several Cochrane reviews addressing it - but again I don't plan on editing that part of the article. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I've just learnt a new word (natch!). —Misty_(MORN) 11:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That Cochrane review compares clozapine with typical antipsychotics. I'm not sure how relevant that is; it depends on what you are trying to show I suppose. This article compares clozapine with other atypicals. This looks like a more balanced paper. This is another useful paper.

According to the current text in WP:MEDASSESS, we're not supposed to consider any possible bias in Raja's paper. Axl ¤ 16:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I was motivated by trying to source a very specific bit of text on clozapine (what's being done about urinary incontinence) and Raja's was the first to come up in google scholar and pubmed. I'm mostly looking for a current summary of adverse affects and contraindications, not use or choice versus other neuroleptics; judging by the above discussion it looks like Raja is probably fine for the former point, but not for the latter. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's ranking compared to other sources

How fair is it to say that Misplaced Pages is one of the single most consulted sources of health information in the world? Surely if we are talking about single media sources, Misplaced Pages must be one of the most consulted sources, right? Is Misplaced Pages the single most consulted source of health information in the world?

Is anyone aware of any scholarly source which tries to quantify just how much Misplaced Pages is used in comparison to any other single point from which health information can originate? What sources exist which approach this sort of assessment? I am aware of this list of sources compiled by Doc James but not aware of someone making an outright comparison of Misplaced Pages versus the world. Is there one? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good question. It is one of the most used medical sources but is it the most, that I do not know. We have survey data from physicians and medical students that show usage of 50-70% / 100%. We have page views for some sites. We discuss some of this in this paper http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e14/

Now our medical pages get 200 million page views a month. Misplaced Pages as a whole gets ~18,000 million page views. That means the medical content is 1.1% of all Misplaced Pages usage. Misplaced Pages is user by about 14% of the global internet users daily * 1.1% = 0.15% of the global population.

Per Alexa the NIH is used by 0.3%, medscape is used by 0.04%, NHS 0.04% uptodate by 0.007%. And per table 1 in the above paper none of the other wikis come close. Of course these numbers are very rough estimates and have made a great number of assumption. Can we make them better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait we should only be using page views for English :-) The number should be 11,630 million. This than gives us 0.26% of global Internet users visit Misplaced Pages's medical pages daily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So to conclude Misplaced Pages's medical content is consulted more than the NHS, WHO, UpToDate, and WebMD (Medscape/Emedicine) and slightly less than the NIH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Realized I made anther error.

1. Pageviews for English content June 2012 7,554M
2. Pageviews for medical English content June 2012 193M

• Therefore proportion of pageviews for medical content is 2.55% multiply this by the three month daily reach per Alexa for Misplaced Pages as a whole (13.6%) and one gets a medical daily reach of 0.35% Thus one could say that Misplaced Pages is the most used health care resource on the Internet!Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

The quest for get Misplaced Pages editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Misplaced Pages Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Go sign up! Ocaasi 02:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is amazing. Well done to those who have organized this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Research Project

Hope this finds everyone doing well. I happened to run across this page today ...

... and signed up to help (RESEARCH - YUMMY!). Thought I'd just leave a note here in case anyone else might be interested in participating.

Very best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

sources

If anyone is looking for recent book sources on specific diseases/disorders or other medical topics including anatomy and physiological systems, for the purpose of Misplaced Pages work, you are welcome to email me with the details. (Random examples: aphasia; sarcoidosis; epilepsy.) I may be able to help you. Consider this offer a proactive extension of WP:RX. That being said, I may not be responding to email for a while, after today, so the sooner the better. Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a kind offer. Can you give a list of the books you have access to, perhaps on your user page? Axl ¤ 08:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not feasible, as I'm seeing what's available based on a given request. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us an idea of how many books or subjects might be available? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)