Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MED)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

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

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

    List of archives

    Cancer Alley sourcing

    [edit]

    Seems to be a spike of interest in this for US political reasons (?). Anyway, an editor is wanting to make changes and there is disagreement about use of primary sources, letters, WP:MDPI and sourcing standards in general. More eyes would be helpful! Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "RfC notice: Lead section proposal at Talk:Acupuncture"

    [edit]

    An RfC has been posted at Talk:Acupuncture regarding the lead section and its alignment with Wikipedia’s content policies. Input welcome. --Haharris9 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    you need to add for an Rfc notice--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Health benefits of quitting alcohol

    [edit]

    Health benefits of quitting alcohol is a new entry with a tag that could use some improvement, if any project members are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've suggest a merge to Health effects of alcohol; discussion at Talk:Health effects of alcohol#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to work on things

    [edit]

    Hey all, hope you're all doing well.

    I should have a bit of time over the next month or two to work on some more in depth things. Rather than trying to contribute to other areas, I'm going to try to pick up where I left off a few years ago. One example is User:Berchanhimez/HIDE - where I about 5 years ago tried to categorize templates that may not be needed/used. I know I need to go back and update/expand that list for any templates that are still used - but I also have this list of articles, some of which I could work on. I probably don't have the time to get anything all the way to GA status, but I would happily work on some articles on that list if people think they could be improved in general. I'd appreciate any ideas on what I should work on, and/or any comments on that "HIDE list" that I made a while back, to try and best manage my time over the next while.

    Thanks in advance for the comments/ideas :) - Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding, I should've done this first, but I just went through my "HIDE list" and removed any templates that were deleted within the past few years. Many of them were deleted at the creators' request from what I saw. If people think me finishing that list for the letters I didn't finish back then, I am happy to spend some time doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berchanhimez Hi! I personally would be interested in helping improve Joint injection and Patient-controlled analgesia I should have some time in the next month or so if you wanted to discuss further via our talk pages! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to work on those with you - I have both of them on my watchlist still so we can probably just coordinate on their respective talk page if/when needed! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See you there :) my free time will probably start this weekend at the latest, just waiting for a couple projects to confirm they're done irl. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing#Requested move 21 May 2025

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing#Requested move 21 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Intersex variations

    [edit]

    An expert review of Category:Intersex variations would be appreciated, as many of the articles do not contain any text obviously justifying inclusion in the category. However, it is not an area I am knowledgeable in, so I am not sure if this is generally due to deficiencies in the articles or if the category has been over-extended.--Trystan (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ICD coding for rare diseases- warranted?

    [edit]

    Found a spam link in this article ICD coding for rare diseases that had been introduced years ago in this neglected article. Upon further examination, I'm wondering if this article is even warranted or should be nominated for deletion. It basically just explains ICD coding, with some discussion of rare diseases, such as many not having codes. Happy to be educated on this topic. Article started by @Barbara (WVS) in 2017. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support this if you wanted to post it to AFD. Alternative would be a redirect to Rare disease. If we were to keep the article it would need an overhaul. There is several inline tags and the wording is questionable (eg. A good place to start is to contact an advocacy organization for the rare disease) IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather see a proper merge (i.e., picking out the best bits) than a Wikipedia:Blank and redirect. I don't see any value in trying to delete the article. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I meant that the article probably fits the criteria for AFD but a better alternative would be to salvage what we can and move that over to rare diseases. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Quisqualic acid

    [edit]

    This may be within the remit of this WikiProject. I've been going through a category of citations that need fixing, and I came across quisqualic acid. It seems to have references that don't support the text, close copying of at least one uncited source, and a general air of oddity. Further attention would be appreciated. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Clouding of consciousness" article needs name change to brain fog or cog fog.

    [edit]

    "Clouding of consciousness" is a completely un-used term as of 2025. If it has any connotations it is with drowsiness (i.e. near-sleep states) or drug-taking; both very different from cog fog in common usage as a cognitive problem and symptom associated with brain damage and conditions such as fibromyalgia. Thanks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clouding_of_consciousness#This_article_name_must_be_changed_to_brain_fog_or_cog_fog Asto77 (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Veterinary sources and MEDRS

    [edit]

    How do veterinary sources fit into MEDRS. The source in question is [1] would I be able to use this to cite the claim that carfentanil's only use in humans is for research in mapping the μ-opioid receptor? Would I be able to use it to cite the report's a of a primary study e.g. 'A prospective randomized multicenter study in humans reported that the frequency of adverse effects was similar between remifentanil and fentanyl; however, hypotension occurred more commonly in patients receiving remifentanil'

    I've provided example but this is a general question on the suitability of high quality veterinary sources and MEDRS rather than any one-specific instance. Sacristy (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ISBN 978-1-119-83027-6 is a recently published veterinary anesthesia textbook; it is an excellent source in general. Its lone weak spot in the usual MEDRS evaluation framework is that, when speaking of humans, it is stepping outside its main field. We worry a bit about content "outside the journal's normal scope" because it can sometimes indicate a problem (e.g., maybe there is a second use, but the authors hadn't heard of it because it's outside their usual field).
    In this sense, for the general question, I would encourage you to check for human-focused sources. You wouldn't want to use a vet med source to actually contradict a high-quality human med source for information about human medicine (and vice versa).
    You might, however, sometimes want to use the vet med source (e.g., if it's the only thing you've got) or to pair it with a more human-focused source (e.g., if the vet med source says clearly what human med sources hint at). In this case, a second source such as PMID 30666589 (TWL link – @Sacristy, you are just 64 edits away from getting free access to sources through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library) might supplement this nicely, as it says "Little is known" in humans and focuses on illicit uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The World Destubathon

    [edit]

    Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving science and medicine-related articles and we want to see a lot of articles from these fields destubbed and older stale articles improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Stub-Class medicine articles contains almost 12,000 articles. These ratings tend to be a bit out of date, so a small fraction of them are likely Start-class and just need to have the ratings updated/stub tags removed.
    Start with this list if you like to expand stubs about people and organizations. The opposite list is not as clean, but you can try this to find more medical articles.
    The top prize for STEM articles is US$300. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a good redirect?

    [edit]

    Subchorionic haemorrhage => Chorionic hematoma

    I encountered the term "subchorionic haemorrhage", didn't know what it meant, ran a search, discovered the chorionic hematoma article, and it seems to describe something like the context in which I encountered the first term. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes this is a good redirect as it is mentioned in the article. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? When I ran a Ctrl+F search, I got zero results. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First bullet item in Chorionic hematoma#Cause and diagnosis. Would the useful bit of information sound something like "hematomas mean hemorrhaging"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah okay, thank you; I don't know what the individual terms mean. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Medicalese can be a foreign language some days. In plain English, subchorionic hemorrhage is a bit of bleeding coming from a particular place during a pregnancy, usually resulting in a little bit of blood in the vagina. Looking quickly at a few sources (I am not a healthcare professional of any kind, and even if I were, I wouldn't be your doctor, etc.), it appears that the usual result is to give everyone a good scare, followed by a healthy baby about six months later. However, there are other outcomes, and if you'd like to read more about it, then you might look over https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559017/ It's a professional-level source but I think it is not impossible to figure out what it's saying.
    And, yes, please create that redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thank you, also, for the useful bit of information; I thought a hematoma/haematoma was some sort of clot. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, normally, but they seem to use both words interchangeably for this situation. I guess it's a difference between preferring a name for "the bleeding that causes the clot" and "the clot that was caused by bleeding". Thanks for creating the redirect. That might help someone in the future (a little bit. The target article isn't very helpful right now). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Farsightedness#Requested move 25 May 2025

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Farsightedness#Requested move 25 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge discussion

    [edit]

    More input from uninvolved editors would be welcome at Talk:Urination#Merge proposal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Cystic Fibrosis page

    [edit]

    Hi all,

    Is there somewhere I can flag besides here that the Cystic Fibrosis article might do with an overhaul? Barely any of the refs are from the past five years and I'm lead to believe by articles like this that outcomes have changed radically since a treatment innovation in 2019. I'd do it myself but it looks like it needs someone more specialised in this area. Daphne Morrow (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can improve this kind of thing and I encourage you to try to do so yourself! Usually for updating citations I try to find a couple comprehensive sources (usually huge reviews or textbook chapters), go through those newer sources, see what I can replace, and then go from there. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Joaquin Farias altmed bio and Focal dystonia § Procedures

    [edit]

    I saw this article a few months ago and thought it might have been a little overly credulous, but I don't really edit much in altmed and medicine related topics, so I don't really know what people usually do for those. The TED talks and other Youtube videos in § Procedures on the disorder article would certainly not be MEDRS, so would it be normal to just remove them? Input would be appreciated. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, removing sources (rather than removing content+source, or replacing weak sources with better ones) is not a great idea. If the content came from a weak source, then it's best if other editors can see that.
    However, I don't think this is altmed; it sounds like pretty ordinary physical therapy. There's nothing there that sounds (to me, a non-expert) like it would be out of place in a mainstream Stroke rehab program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mostly worried about presenting the, from what I could tell, very preliminary research from a few primary papers on equal footing as the standard procedure to reduce symptoms. It's not "pseudoscience" altmed but the effectiveness is certainly yet to be firmly established, and seems to be a good deal of promotional woo (e.g. Wow, neuroplasticity!) which you would not get in our coverage of physical therapy. But thank you for your comment WhatamIdoing, I think has helped pin down a bit better what my concerns actually are. I think I'll replace the YouTube videos and case reports in § Procedures with a review article (or two) and remove the namedrops for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the namedrops in Focal dystonia were weird. Also, it feels like some sentences are just stuck in the middle of unrelated paragraphs. For example, "Bass guitarist and instructor Scott Devine" wears a glove, but what does that have to do with ===Physical therapy===? Why are "sensorimotor retraining activities" under (surgical) ===Procedures=== instead of physical (or occupational) therapy? I'm glad that you're looking into the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC Radio 4's "Case Notes" has been turned into a redirect

    [edit]

    UK editors probably know BBC Radio 4's show called "Case Notes", a factual program about health presented by a UK GP. It was nominated for deletion and turned into a redirect. I would like to restore the article, so I have stated a discussion on the talk page. It was not tagged as a WP:Medicine page back then, so the WP Medicine project was not notified of the deletion discussion. /See Talk:Case Notes (radio show). Snowman (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personality disorder

    [edit]

    There are some pretty important conversations going on over at Talk:Personality disorder including Talk:Personality disorder#Significant lack of citations regarding the lack of citations throughout the article Talk:Personality disorder#Profound lack of information on PD assessment regarding where we seem to be lacking some information, and Talk:Personality disorder#Managment section which is my attempt at trying to make some improvements to the management section. Any input would be appreciated. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Diagnostic overshadowing in autism

    [edit]

    There is a new page that was recently created that may interest this wikiproject, Diagnostic overshadowing in autism. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rigid thinking

    [edit]

    Rigid thinking is a WP:REDLINK. Is there an existing article/other name it should be redirected to? Or are we actually missing this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Oolong, I checked for this article because of its association with ideology, but it comes up in autism-related contexts, too. Are you aware of any related articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cocaine

    [edit]

    Cocaine this article needs some attention from an expert in the field it has been overwhelmed with copy pasting. Moxy🍁 00:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1295100755"