Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Refactored
The page was getting unmanageably large, so I've created Archive 4 and refactored this one. Hope that's OK with all of you. I've still left some pretty old discussions here, but curiously Dr. Ruben replied to an older message just some minutes ago that got swept up into the archive before I realized what was happening. The diff is here.
Regards--Encephalon | ? 20:46:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
Bay Area Lasik Video
Medical Genetics WikiProject
I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse work 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Diabetes
Having an interesting discussion on Talk:Diabetes mellitus whether there is an endogenous form of the yeast glucose tolerance factor, a chromium-containing substance which may ameliorate diabetes. At the moment I'm having a bit of a déjà vu. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Input requested at Drug-eluting stent
I hope you're not tired of me announcing my articles here, but I just wrote drug-eluting stent and I could definitely use some help. (I can't believe there wasn't already an article on it!) It's definitely one of the biggest articles I've tried writing from scratch (that and History of Earth), and I'm struggling a bit. I'd appreciate if any of you who have the time or desire could take a look. In addition to general comments and fixes, there are a few specific requests I have. First, please correct any inaccuracies or misleading statements. Second, how detailed should I make the "Uses" section? Should I describe the specific lesions that are stented? Specific trials? Third, help with the "tone" of the article, and properly balancing benefits and controversy would be appreciated. Fourth, what else can I do to expand or improve it? I can add technical details, but I'm not sure how beneficial they are in an encyclopedia article. I'd like to nominate it for peer review at some point, but it should probably be longer and I really would appreciate some medical feedback first. It would make a good topic for featured article, no? We've had plenty of featured articles on diseases and anatomic structures; how about an intervention/device for a change? -- Knowledge Seeker ? 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway great article, it was interesting to read. Congrat! After these, it can go to peer review. :) NCurse work 10:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Andropause??
Anyone else think this article is borderline quackery? In my endocrinology book, they have one small paragraph on andropause in the menopause section, and it says There is a question as to whether there is an equivalent 'andropause' in men. Jpbrody 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The concept is not entirely bogus, but is often exaggerated to the point of quackery. The principal differences between menopause and andropause are that menopause is a complete cessation of ovarian function, both hormonal and reproductive. By the end of menopause many of the reproductive hormones return to prepubertal levels and spontaneous fertility is close to zero. It occurs over a few years, a short enough time that abrupt hormone withdrawal symptoms are common. Andropause, on the other hand, is a relative decrease to lower hormonal levels which occurs over decades. The hormone levels may decrease by 30-70% between the ages of 45 and 75 years, but sperm production falls by less, and both testosterone and sperm production are maintained well above prepubertal levels. Abrupt hormone withdrawal symptoms are uncommon and fertility is often maintained even into one's 80s. The concept of andropause appeals to those who think aging is a treatable disease. We have certainly learned that one cannot simply keep a woman on estrogen to age 90 without incurring some shift of risks. We are going to find out the same thing about giving testosterone to aging men. And, yes, the concept is partly a product of pharmaceutical marketing. For the last several years the annual scientific meetings of the Endocrine Society have included structured debates about the concept and the pros and cons of testosterone treatment of aging. alteripse 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Molly, you mean disease mongering. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The andropause (as it is sometimes called) is a more gradual process than the menopause. Various preparations of testosterone are available in the UK for male hypogonadism, which may help with ED and osteoporosis in men. Snowman 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Pharmacology Templates
Several users are currently discussing formatting issues at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates. Further feedback from interested parties would be welcome. --Arcadian 07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Medicinal properties of dandelion
Opinions on how to handle Medicinal properties of dandelion? AfD? Merge? AED 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Stress Strain Index
While working in the wikification project, I came across this article that probably needs some expert attention. I have no clue what the equation means, so if someone could look at that article, I'd really appreciate it. It needs work to be cleaned up and such. Thanks, Metros232 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
regulation of psychotherapy
I'm trying to find out when the state of New Jersey started regulating psychotherapy. Thanks in advance for any help. --JWSchmidt 04:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible AfD
Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas is a physician and author of a few medical review books. I'm thinking about nominating the article for deletion on the grounds that he doesn't appear to meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) or Wikipedia:Notability (books), but I though it might be wise to get some feedback here first. Does being an author guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia? -AED 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. Very much a vanity page. Agree with your doctor/book failures. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for Authors - "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The few books appear to be exam-cram guides of limited shelf-life.Colin°Talk 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. It's up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas. -AED 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
See my talk page if interested in a strange exchange with the subject of this article. -AED 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Famous people with... (Part II)
I am about to make a change to the section in Eyebrow entitled People famous for their eyebrows per the previous discussion here. The two primary suggestions were to move the section to a list page or to enforce the requirement for references per WP:V and WP:RS. Anyone else have a preference before I do this? Anyone willing to back me up if the change is reverted? -AED 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Medical professionalism
- New editor added this to Medicine article which unless one understands that 'medical professionalism' is some form of rear-guard action by doctors, seems to make little sense.
- In turn medical professionalism is a very odd piece - its seems an essay on attempts "to protest the restrictions on service delivery imposed by health maintenance organizations" - certainly not how I would use term 'medical professionalism'.
- Worse still the article's various sections seem to be mere introductions to the various multiple full raw URL links to http://www.imapny.org/libdocs/libdocs_list.htm?attrib_list=???? (which are lists of papers rather than any single paper, opinion, collated analysis etc).
- medical professionalism is also a clear copyvio of About IMAPNY.org
- So is this all a genuine use of expression in US, an essay needing wikifying (i.e. addition of content rather than external links), spaming for Institute on Medicine As A Profession or what ? David Ruben Talk 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is pretty interesting. I'm not sure that I've heard this collection of recommendations, etc. referred to as "medical professionalism," but I am sure that the movement has some name. The concepts are all quite familiar, I'm sure. Obviously it's a copyvio, but I believe it probably has some merit as a movement within medicine (even if the name given is new or a neologism). It should certainly be covered in some article (even if not this one). InvictaHOG 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Advocacy for obesity
I think the advocacy for obesity articles (how I'd describe 'em) need some attention. There are bunch and they are growing. The latest is Health at Every Size, which I think borders on a vanispamcruftisement. It grew indirectly from the Fat acceptance movement. Might be good to nip this in the bud before it gets bigger... Nephron T|C 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Merjing NeuroScience into Neurology
I got into this subject from wondering what the difference between Neurology and Neuroscience was, and I concluded that there isn't a very big one, nor is it a distinction that pervades European language. It's not in Czech, German, or Polish. One is a research discipline. The other tends to refer to pathology. I also ran into minor objections, one of them being that there are too many categories that some articles would fit in. No big deal in my book, especially since I'm trying to eliminate a category. Some elaborate articles should get into many categories. This is my thinking, if I continue:
Pathology: Any condition for which there is a laboratory test or medical imaging to confirm or deny a diagnosis. In rural areas, I'm left to believe that G.P.s often interpret lab results. This category is the main difference between Neuroscience and Neurology. IOW, if an article is about both NeuroScience and Disease, then it properly belongs only in Neurology.
Symptoms: I would abandon categorizing articles under Symptoms for being literally equal to Pathology, but then I would be left with no distinction for an article that was under neuroscience, but described a disease that should be under Neurology as it was orijinally distinguished from NeuroScience.
Buttressing my rationale, in a rough manner of side issues, is a relatively unused category:medicine, and I really think the stubs category is far too big. Aren't all wiki articles stubs? An edit tab is at the top of just about every page on wikipedia. Isn't that enough to prompt input from someone who knows what they're talking about? So, if an article seems to be complete or not likely to expand, you'll excuse me for deleting the stub templates.
Someone objected to a fifth category:treatment, but that again offers a reason to class an article under neurology. If I heed the objection, it will be because treatment falls into Neurology. If I ignore it, it will be because articles exclusively about treatment will likely remain a small category.
RfC: Medical tourism
It has been suggested in Talk:Medical tourism that Medical value travel, Medical tourism in Thailand, and Medical Tourism India merge to Medical tourism. Anyone care to comment before this is done? -AED 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions about radiology images and patient confidentiality
I know this may end up being an institution/America specific question, but I was wondering what people knew/thought about obtaining permission, etc. before releasing radiologic studies (with all identifying information removed!) into the public domain. I could contribute a ton of x-rays, but haven't because I just don't know the law! InvictaHOG 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to be on the safe side, I think it would be advisable to get a patients consent before uploading them, regardless wether or not it is legal to do it without consent. --WS 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm really no expert here, but seems to me this topic is bound to pop up some day again and nobody will remember this discussion: therefore, how about any of you added some of these thoughts to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Expert help for V. Craig Jordan bio
I created a bio for V. Craig Jordan, pharmacologist who published lots on tamoxifen. But I have no medical training and would appreciate it if someone with more of a clue could take a brief look and see if I misrepresented anything or left out something blindingly obvious. Thanks. --SiobhanHansa 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Myopia
I think I've already crossed the 3RR line, so I could use a bit of assistance in Myopia. Someone with socks keeps adding "Behavioral myopia" (a concept that gets only 4 Google hits) to a part of the article that makes a true description false. Thanks! -AED 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
First clinical syndrome
This article first clinical syndrome should be merged with medical student syndrome. While the article describes things that may be unique to India, the entities themselves are essentially identical. 70.19.131.66 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Ulcerative colitis RfC
Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology -- Samir ???? 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC):
Sorry, I meant send Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis for AFD. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Full-body scan
Anyone want to have a peek at this new article? I've disputed the use of secondary sources and web sites on the talk page -- Samir ???? 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Clinical Cases
Clinical Cases (talk · contribs) has been inserting links to the site that bears his username, which contains case reports and howto's. We now disagree on whether a link of his on polycythemia is appropriate. JFW | T@lk 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Enzyme nominated for FA
If anyone might be interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enzyme. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Peer review wanted
I've spent most of today improving coeliac disease, relying on a number of key papers and generally finding material to close the gaps. This is a common condition that is still underdiagnosed in most countries, but it is a fertile area of research, and there has been a major paradigm shift over the last ten years or so. I've refactored some poorly sourced, unencyclopedic or redundant stuff, and standardised the citation system.
On the whole, I think it looks pretty good. I've had some input from Samir and Webaware. But before I submit this for actual project-wide peer review I was wondering if you'd all could be so kind as to take a look, improve that is necessary, or mentioned major misrepresentations on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My response:
- No reference needed. This introduces the outline I've used to seperate the symptoms into luminal, nutrient/micronutrient malabsorption and miscelaneous. If you have a better way of classifying the symptoms please don't hesitate to change it around.
- Please copyedit the genetics section. What links do you want? OMIM is already linked from the diseases infobox.
- It has been fixed. NCurse work 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- What images should we use anyway? JFW | T@lk 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't know, there is only one image in commons. It's not your fault, i was just wondering. I found images for melanoma article on a homepage for example. I'll try to search. NCurse work 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks fantastic to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Very nice work. I added a couple of small points and moved a paragraph about diagnosis to the proper section. alteripse 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Pages needing attention from an expert in medicine
I've started Category:Pages needing attention from an expert in medicine. Interested users can have a look and maybe weigh in on several issues posted there. Maybe we could create a Task Force within this project to cover those articles?
Also, I've asked for a bot to automatically sort pages needing expert attention into categories.
To add an article to this category, replace you can replace {{Expert}} by {{Expert-Medicine}}.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Communicating prevalence
In reviewing the Coeliac disease article, I found that the prevalence was expressed as a percentage. I continued this when adding another sentence, even though the source data I used gave a 1:XX ratio. There is an excellent article by Ben Goldacre on the problems of communicating such numbers: Risky Business. In the discussion that followed the article, someone posted details of a related article from Science magazine. BTW: I think most wikidocs here would enjoy Ben's writing.
Anyway, which do people find best:
- A large multicentre study in the US found a prevalence of 0.75% in not-at-risk groups, rising to 1.8% in symptomatic patients, 2.6% in second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease and 4.5% in first-degree relatives.
- A large multicentre study in the US found a prevalence of 1:133 in not-at-risk groups, rising to 1:56 in symptomatic patients, 1:39 in second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease and 1:22 in first-degree relatives.
- A large multicentre study in the US found a prevalence of 7.5 per thousand individuals in not-at-risk groups, rising to 18 per thousand in symptomatic patients, 26 per thousand in second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease and 45 per thousand in first-degree relatives.
- A large multicentre study in the US found that symptomatic patients were 2.4 times more likely to have coeliac disease than not-at-risk groups. Second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease were at 3.5 greater risk and first-degree relatives had a 6-fold greater risk.
- A large multicentre study in the US found that symptomatic patients were 240% more likely to have coeliac disease than not-at-risk groups. Second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease were at 350% increased risk and first-degree relatives had a 600% greater risk.
- Boffins say children of banana babies are six times more likely to get rare bowel disease. ;-)
I wouldn't be surprised if I'd made a mistake rewording all those variations. Any other variations or better wording? Thoughts? Colin°Talk 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Another article for deletion
For whoever is interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals --WS 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikiversity School of Medicine
Check out the Wikiversity School of Medicine!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hemorrhoids are disgusting
I'm having a discussion over at Talk:Hemorrhoid wether or not the images should stay; many others seem te find them disgusting. I think this could apply to more cases, maybe it's important to have some kind of consensus on this matter? Any advice to untie that Gordian knot might be helpful.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Interventions
Feedback requested at Template talk:Interventions infobox. --Arcadian 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
RfC: Bay Area Medical Center
Bay Area Medical Center states: "BAMC was just recently ranked among the top 5% of hospitals in the in the US for clinical excellence by HealthGrades." I found a relevant link about this award here. Can anyone shed some information on this award? Is this something in which you have to enroll in order to be eligible to win? -AED 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
RfC: LASIK MD
LASIK MD was recently created by User:Lasikmd. Although it screams "advertisement", I was hoping for a second opinon as to whether it meets the guidelines at WP:CORP prior to consider AfD. Thanks! -AED 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hepatitis C and STDs
Someone has made a template on STD's Template:STD/STI and is vehemently arguing without evidence that Hepatitis C is an STD. Sexual transmission of Hepatitis C is very low, and even the CDC no longer lists sexual transmission as a risk factor of hepatitis C. PMID 16888612 [4]. The American Association for Studies of the Liver (AASLD) does not even recommend the need for barrier protection in monogamous couples where one member has Hepatitis C [5]. Our own article makes it clear that it is not an STD. As such, I've removed it from the template, but one editor disputes this. The template is now blocked because of an edit war. Comments are requested. -- Samir ???? 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is little evidence (but some) that Hepatitis D is sexually transmitted. It's not listed in the most recent CDC MMWR as an STD [6]. I'd prefer not to have it on an STD template without striking evidence -- Samir ???? 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I also removed Hepatitis A. Although certain practices could lead to sexual transmission of this enterovirus, it is by no means an STD. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Emergency Medicine
A recent edit has removed a point of controversy in Emergency Medicine. Before adding back the information, I'd like others thoughts, since I am some what personally biased.
There are two competing board certifications ABEM and BCEM. The major difference is that ABEM certifies physicians who are residency trained in Emergency Medicine, while BCEM will certify those who have followed a practice track. Many who are residency trained in Emergency Medicine feel that the "practice track," while once sufficient, is no longer enough to make one a competant Emergency Physician. Those who have taken and passed the BCEM because they were no ABEM eligible clearly disagree. Florida allows the BCEM by statute, North Caroline rejects it and there is a fight among individual hospitals about whether they will accept BCEM as equivalent to ABEM for "Board Certification in Emergency Medicine.
I'm looking for other people's thoughts about if and how this should be incorperated in the article. Bdolcourt 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Cofact
I was wondering if cofact is used anywhere outside of the Netherlands? I could only find information about it on dutch websites. If not, what do you use to treat patients receiving oral anticoagulants who are bleeding? --WS 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just found out that the more general term often used is prothrombin complex concentrate. --WS 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for work on acute myeloid leukemia
Thanks to everyone who worked on, peer-reviewed, and discussed the acute myeloid leukemia article. It looks pretty good (although of course can always be improved) and has been accepted as a Featured Article. MastCell 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
RfC
I was wondering if someone might want to briefly check the contributions of a new user who has been adding information to various pharmaceutical articles. Some of the information User:Chrisgaffneymd has added appears to have been copied from drug data sheets and his Talk page indicates he has a (short) history of adding copied material. The subject matter is beyond my area of expertise. -AED 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
RfC: Greg Baer
Although Greg Baer appears to be a notable author of relationship books based on sales, I am not sure how his medical background should be addressed in the article. In an interview given to his brother, in an excerpt from a book, on his website, and on various website mirroring what he has stated on his website, he claims to have "received the highest honors in medical school", to have "established one of the most successful ophthalmology practices in the country", and to have "taught the latest in surgical techniques to other physicians across the country". There is no indication from him or anyone else when or where he went to medical school. The bottom line is that there is nothing to verify his medical background other what he states that it is. Thoughts? -AED 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia ref in BMJ
Not a participant in this project, and probably the wrong place to put this, but Fiona Godlee has "cited" Wikipedia (most likely this article) in her editorial in this week's BMJ: editorial o commentary Fvasconcellos 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Pyroluria
Someone kindly alerted me about pyroluria. I tagged it {{NPOV}} (not something I do frequently) because it creates the impression it is a bona fide medical condition (quod non). JFW | T@lk 18:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Psychosis
Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Tree of Hippocrates is a DYK candidate
I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Various articles for deletion
For those interested:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackpotwatch. -AED 05:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phytofruit2. -AED 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'ama Yehuda. -AED 22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian american medical association -AED 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis (per JFW) -AED 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Chauhan (physician) -AED 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumer Kumar Sethi -AED 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals (per WS) -AED 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahraban Abdullah (Dr.) -AED 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Meltzer -AED 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kha Hoang -AED 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)</s?
RfC: Which way to redirect?
Oculoplastics to Oculoplastic surgery or Oculoplastic surgery to Oculoplastics? -AED 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Revert war on Psoriasis
David Ruben and I are involved in a tedious revert war involving external link spam in the article Psoriasis. I'd appreciate any third party help! Thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon