Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

MicroDNA

One of your knowledgely folks may want to have a look at this new article. For my own part, at a certain level or ignorance, a notable topic is indistinguishable from a hoax. GMG^talk 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

actually falls underWikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to exist, but should probably be merged to Extrachromosomal Circular DNA. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a misspelling of microRNA, like FOXO is sometimes misinterpreted as "Forkhead homeobox" (FOXO transcription factors are a different protein family from Homeodomain transcription factors). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the creator of the article is also the author of the paper linked in external links. I don't know whether to call this a COI or just personal promotion. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Extrachromosomal Circular DNA is certainly sufficiently notable. I've been bold and done the merger, since MicroDNA on its own is too limited I think. I've checked the external link paper (now inline ref) and it is relevant enough to keep. The editor has written sufficiently neutrally that I don't think the COI is an issue in this case. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

thank you T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Health care ratings tagged as medical expert required, but that seems a misuse of the tag

The tag says " The specific problem is: Neutrality of the article concerning the financial incentives linked to funding qualifications of healthcare institutes based on greater positive ratings."

I don't think the tag is appropriate, but as I've already been struggling to explain to this editor that adding NPOV tags without specifics is a bad idea (please do see if you can make sense of Talk:Steven Emerson#Consistent total-reversion by a particular ECU . I'm not a medical expert, I'm not going to touch this one! Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

i worked it over. Yes the tag was bogus. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's my experience that many of these tags have been placed inappropriately, and that almost none of them result in any practical improvements to an article. For example, Criticism of fast food#Food poisoning risk doesn't need an expert, and it's been patiently waiting for someone to fix it for more than five years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it's been suffering from {{POV}} for six years. But we have it easy: there's an article in Category:Articles needing expert attention from March 2006 for the experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing to sort out. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Although, I just spotted Caplan's syndrome ... --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I pulled the tag off that one: the article looks reasonable at a first glance, and there's no way to know what the tagger wanted.

A lot of Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention probably needs the same treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikidata now showing more "appropriately" in watchlists

The way changes to Wikidata show up in your watchlist on English Wikipedia has recently been improved. Previously if a Wikidata property was used within a Wikipedia page any change to any property in the entire item on Wikidata would create a line in your watchlist.

Now only if changes occur to that specific property used (or the aliases) will a line appear in your watch list. In my opinion this is a significant step forwards so congrats to the Wikidata team. I have requested the option not to show changes to "aliases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

very good change!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Still no way to tell, in that image, if the edit is constructive or not. Having to go to a different site with a different UI to figure out whether the infobox has been made inaccurate, or vandalized, is far from ideal. To me, it's against the spirit of this wiki, where changes that are made to the article are recorded here. Outriggr (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, you have to change the default of OFF for "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" at Preferences, Watchlist. I'd bet very, very few normal editors have that turned on - I certainly didn't. I've now turned it on, but with a watchlist of over 24k articles, I'm rather dreading the result. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There are still improvements needed. It still shows some stuff it shouldn't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's better than it was. I'm working on our templates and Lua modules to minimise the number of different items that an article reads from Wikidata, which will allow the watchlist to be more specific. We also have very good relations with the folks doing development on this part of the MediaWiki software, and I'm optimistic that further improvements are possible in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just picked up my first bit of WD vandalism via this new watchlist.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

therefore it is useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Electrotherapy - Medical device problem - electricity or EMR in medicine

This will not interest folks mostly interested in drugs, but we have a bit of a problem with our article structures about use of electrical or electromagnetic radiation (EMR) used therapeutically (this is not getting into the whole imaging thing)

There are multiple branchings. Electricity or EMR can be used to stimulate or ablate, for therapeutic purposes.

We have (listed roughly from most general to most specific)

• Electrotherapy (total mess)
• Photomedicine
• Laser medicine (many things link from here
• Neurostimulation (broad concept - many kind of nervous system/nerves; electric and EMR)

Going down the stimulation with electricity pathway

• Electroanalgesia
• Functional electrical stimulation (broad concept, messy article mixing research and medicine and fringey stuff)
• Electrical muscle stimulation
• Electrical brain stimulation (a mess, kind of a subset of the above focused on the brain)
• Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (fringey, pretty solid article)
• Transcranial direct-current stimulation (fringey, pretty solid article)
• Transcranial alternating current stimulation (fringey, pretty solid article)
• Transcranial random noise stimulation (fringey, weak article)
• Deep brain stimulation (real medicine; messy article)
• Electroconvulsive therapy (real medicine, article is OK)
• Vagus nerve stimulation (real medicine, lots of hype from companies, messy article)
• Electrotherapy (cosmetic)

going down the stimulation or other "therapy" with EMR pathway.

• Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (a disambig page that is a mess)
• Low Field Magnetic Stimulation (LFMS)
• Magnetic seizure therapy
• Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (real medicine, pretty solid article)
• Transcranial magnetic stimulation (real medicine, pretty solid article)
• Light therapy
• Blood irradiation therapy
• Low-level laser therapy
• Infrared sauna (yep)

ablation with electricity

• Cauterization#Electrocautery

ablation with EMR

• Laser surgery
• Electrosurgery
• Radiation therapy
• Radiosurgery
• Radiofrequency ablation
• Microwave ablation
  • Catheter ablation
  • Hyfrecator
  • Cyberknife
• Photodynamic therapy
• Alternating electric field therapy (?)
• Photoimmunotherapy and Combinatorial ablation and immunotherapy

mess around Hyperthermia aka Heat therapy (two articles on the same thing?)

• Photothermal therapy
• Magnetic hyperthermia (merged to Hyperthermia therapy) Natureium (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Microwave thermotherapy
• Tronado machine

I am hanging my head over this thicket. This is not even all of it.

But to focus, what should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (fixed "EMF" thing without redacting Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))

Could I ask, please, for you to check what abbreviations you're using above, because I'm finding it confusing. EMF is 'electromotive force', i.e. voltage, which implies moving electrons through the body. EMR is 'electomagnetic radiation', which implies bombarding the body with photons of some wavelength. Magnetism is a different phenomenon again. Lasers won't be based on EMF, for example, nor is magnetic stimulation EMR. If the articles are that confused, they need taking to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure EMF is being used to mean "electromagnetic fields". Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Which would add to the confusion as EMF would then be synonymous with EMR, and if so, then Electrosurgery, for example, wouldn't fit as it relies on an electric current, not an electromagnetic field. There is a huge difference in the mechanisms. But I don't suppose that worries the quacks who are looking for a novelty cure for everything. How long before mesmerism makes a comeback? --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

i made it consistent, without redaction to avoid clutter.Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))

I think I can resolve one of the smaller questions: Heat stroke is a type of Hyperthermia. The proper subject of the Hyperthermia article is a potentially fatal medical condition, not the treatment category that sometimes uses the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

good idea, more concise--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Was the article just moved or has it always been titled that way? It seems fine how it is now. Hyperthermia is a condition and heat therapy is a treatment. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I think Jytdog may have meant to link to Hyperthermia therapy instead of Hyperthermia. As written, Hyperthermia therapy and Heat therapy are 2 different things. Hyperthermia therapy uses excessive heat to induce cell death, whereas heat therapy is using warmth to sooth sore muscles... or something like that. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I merged magnetic hyperthermia into Hyperthermia therapy since it's been over a year since it was proposed and no one has given a good argument not to. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughts and work everybody! Quite a tangle, right? What should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

How about a broad-concept article? We could keep the history section by moving it to History of electrotherapy. Little pob (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would first suggest removing the Muscle stimulation and Cancer treatment sections, as well everything from the Modern use up to, but not including, the Effectiveness for particular indications section. Those are stuffed full of biomedical claims without a MEDRS source, and in many cases without any source at all. Next rewrite the lead to accurately summarise the lack of evidence for any significant effects at all.

Then have a competition to find the worst bit of woo in the present version of the article and preserve it in formaldehyde somewhere on the talk page as a grisly reminder of the amount of complete bollocks there was in the article. My current favourite is "The free-radical (unpaired electron) containing active-site of enzyme Ribonucleotide Reductase, RnR--which controls the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of DNA--can be disabled by a stream of passing electrons." --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a meta-editing, structural element to my question about Electrotherapy... i put that at the top because as near as I can tell, it is the closest thing we have to a "head" article in Wikipedia about "therapeutic use of electricity and EMR". (not even saying "medical use of electricity and EMR" because then we would have to pull in all the imaging). Should it just be a sort of disambig page and outline for the rest of our content about these things? Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

btw I went and looked at MESH headers on this stuff hoping I would use them as a guide... but they are woefully messy. I was going to present all that mess but it would have been just another bewildering pile for people to sort thru. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Some sort of "Ways people use (and have used) electricity to treat diseases" articles could be encyclopedic. I'm not sure that would be called "electrotherapy", since presumably that article would include pacemakers and deep brain stimulation and defibrillators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Another bolus of student editing

• Dysthymia
• Subcortical ischemic depression -- note - I am not sure this is an actual condition. The name should be probably be Vascular depression. Needs a ton of work; started but much more to do. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 22

May 2018 (UTC)

Worked on the SID article a bit more. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cyclothymia
• Intuitive_eating
• Secondary mania
• Unconscious bias training
• Double depression
• Euthymia (medicine)

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

yes, thank you Jyt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Cranial nerve examination

WP:NOTMANUAL? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

might be best to dispense with wikitable just leave the text, as it would give a less WP:NOTMANUAL impression(and tweak the wording a bit)..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing the middle section may make it less manual-like, just leaving the associated conditions, which could be expanded with the purpose of cranial nerve examination. Natureium (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Help needed with "expanded access", "managed access", "early access", "compassionate use", etc.

Hi all, I've been trying to add a helpful link for "early access" in the context of drug trials, disambiguating it to expanded access. I find, though, that the multiple terms are quite difficult to sort out, particularly from a world-wide perspective. Another page, managed access program clearly overlaps in content, but I suspect that there are multiple meanings for that term: (1) free access to drugs that normally cost a lot and (2) access to drugs that are not yet approved for the particular use. Can anyone help to polish this material to a point where patients can understand it more readily? (For example, I was asked by a very ill person whether "early access" would involve the possibility of being given a placebo only.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

According to these two papers, these programs are all the same thing, just with different names, and they all involve getting the "real" drug (with all of its very real and possibly still unknown side effects and limitations) before the drug regulatory agency has approved it for sale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and to others who stepped in to improve the material. It is a huge help to seeing a way through the morass. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I did some stuff there. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Be careful in this field. The lobbyist groups frame this as compassion for sick people. At the same time, they make $$$$$ ridiculous money by doing experimentation on people outside the bounds of what would normally be safe in medical research. I am not saying that this is good or bad, but only that the pharma companies have extreme incentive to get the data from people who take the non-approved drugs.

In a clinical trial there is never a promise that the drug will treat a condition. A lot of the literature talks about the efficacy of early access drugs in a way that breaks from the norm of how anyone discusses typical clinical trials. The money invested in community outreach to get people to talk about this in a positive way is huge. There is no such thing as early access to drugs without the patient / research subject agreeing to give the pharma company data. The terminology here is confusing because the entire discussion conflates treatment and research and downplays norms of patient safety. I have looked into this articles on wiki and it gets confusing quickly. The voices advocating for the patient, like accepting a condition and not spending one's last days in research, are a lot quieter than the pharma-sponsored papers and books.

In answer to your question - early access almost never includes placebo controlled trials. The metabolites are money.

Research is good but this body of literature and the outreach and publishing campaign creeps me out a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is lots of noise, from many sides.Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle1409465 says that most American manufacturers charge nothing for expanded access programs, because they'd have to disclose their direct manufacturing costs (resulting in "it only cost you $1.50 to make this, and you're charging how much now??!!!").

OTOH, it seems to me that I had heard that a few disreputable places were using expanded access as a way of selling unapproved (and probably unapprovable) drugs, probably in the general vein of alternative cancer treatments. (Maybe in that long news story on the German clinics?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

PMID 26955570 is a review by a consultant person (Tata, the Indian equivalent of McKinsey) and he is quite frank about the benefits of selling through EA programs before approval. No, they do not have to price at cost. They don't have to make it available at all. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The NEJM paper says that within the US, the choices are not offering it at all, offering it at a price that is no higher than direct costs, or offering it for free. The consultant's paper indicates that some countries allow higher prices (I wish the paper named a few examples). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

yes it does! added to the article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Looking for community feedback: WP:MEDRS talk page comment

Hello, I posted a question on the talk page of WP:MEDRS to get community feedback on a clinician/patient guideline publication shared on PCORI's website. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#PCORI_(Patient_Centered_Outcomes_Research_Institute):_Evidence_update_for_clinicians_and_patients

Thank you,

JenOttawa (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Young blood transfusion

This article is going to be on the main page as a DYK and the author twice removed a tag asking for medical references, saying that "I don't believe that it does need such references". The article is on supposed life extension through blood transfusion, which is surely a medical concept.

Additionally, the DYK hook is "... that the blood of young people may extend your life?" Is this really a claim wikipedia wants to be making?

I've been looking on pubmed for actual sources of information on this in humans, and the first paper I found was [2], and the most most recent article from this journal indexed on pubmed is advocating the use of curcumin as a treatment of Alzheimers, so I'm not sure if the research published here should be taken with more than a single grain of salt. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is certainly within the scope of MEDRS. The question is whether using "may" and the fact that the claim isn't describing an actual medical-biological process (is it a transfusion? Touching the blood? Inhaling it?) lowers the bar of evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See also Betteridge's law of headlines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see MEDRS compliance. The article is about human health and is on the fringe of research. Any support for the procedure should be MEDRS compliant. And definitely not ready for Main Page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

I agree with Olive about it not being ready for Main Page. Using "may" and "So-and-so claimed that ..." are not get-out-of-jail-free cards to circumvent MEDRS. I've just given several examples of unsupported biomedical statements on the talk page of the article. I expect them to be contested and would naturally appreciate more eyes on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting here. I posted at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Promoting_FRINGE_snake_oil_on_the_front_page and asked that this be pulled. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Should this be sent to AFD? With the puffery and related sources gone, the coverage left in the article isn't spectacular. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's it - WP:IDLI so trim it down then delete it. Way to improve coverage! violet/riga _^[talk] 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm mightily impressed that this was taken care of before I could even get back from work. Cheers to everyone who contributed. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has compliant RS for the content so no reason to delete. We do include stubs and shorter articles on Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Article now accurately says this is little more than a fad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Removing list of medical conditions section from Placebo article

I believe the section Placebo#List of medical conditions should be removed. Since placebo effects are noted in basically all clinical trials (as mentioned with citations elsewhere in the article), the section effectively amounts to a list of medical conditions that have been studied in a clinical setting, which does not belong on an article specifically on placebos.

I haven't been able to get any engagement on Talk:Placebo#Removal of section List of medical conditions, apart from a suggestion that I post here, so here I am! Any thoughts (and especially reasons to keep the section?)

Kavigupta 04:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavigupta (talk o contribs)

give opinion(gave mine[3])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Another textbook copy and pasting from Wikipedia

Per Talk:Akathisia#Copyright_issues

This case is interesting as the book is published by Academic Press / Elsevier in 2010. There was an effort to use the book as a reference to support the text. But we had the text first and it had changed over time on Wikipedia.

Found a few spots of copy and pasting. Have not looked at further articles this section may have lifted from. Book in question:

Encyclopedia of movement disorders (1st ed. ed.). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. 2010. ISBN 9780123741059. CS1 maint: Extra text (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And here it appears Cambridge University Press is copy and pasting from Wikipedia.

Talk:Alcohol_intoxication#Copy_and_paste

Zeller, Scott L.; Nordstrom, Kimberly D.; Wilson, Michael P. (2017). The Diagnosis and Management of Agitation. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9781107148123. 

This one is notable as they are the oldest publisher in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Carolina Reaper

There is a disagreement regarding this set of edits [4] to article as per the discussion: [5] as to whether or not MEDRS applies to the case/claims. Falconjh (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

PubMed reviews are always a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting dispute for medical editors and WP content because the topic concerns ingestion of a particularly hot (high capsaicin content) chili pepper that resulted in hospitalization of the consumer experiencing "thunderclap" headaches, concurrent with vasospasm of major intracerebral arteries, shown in CT images here as a single BMJ case report. Dispute issues: 1) the pepper is among the hottest known chilis, raising its profile about what might happen in chili-eating contests, but the actual mechanism of arterial spasm is unknown and contrary to what one might expect of capsaicin as a vasodilator, 2) one person eating it experienced a severe medical emergency, 3) which generated news hype and an entry in the Carolina Reaper article of a section entitled, "Health effects" here, 4) Talk page consensus among non-medical editors is that this one case, sensationalized news story is article-worthy, ignoring OR (inferred by the defending editors insisting this one event is encyclopedic), NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, notability and weight, WP:V, MEDRS confirmation, etc. --Zefr (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The key point of the issue is the inference that eating a chilli pepper caused reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. The plural of anecdote is not data, and a single incident is certainly far too little for it to imply a medical fact. If the article can dispassionately summarise the actual facts (a man ate a very hot chilli pepper in a contest; a few days later he was hospitalised with thunderclap headaches; the neurologists eventually diagnosed RCVS, "probably as a result of eating the chilli"; this was sensationally reported in the popular press), then an argument can be made that it's sufficiently of interest to merit mention in the article. But I find it very difficult to find a form of words that doesn't leave the reader with the impression that eating a chilli caused RCVS, for which there is no significant medical evidence as far as I can see. In fact, the active chemicals are normally considered vasodilators, so any suggestion of causality must be very questionable. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that despite its name (reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome), our article states that the condition can be caused by vasodilation as well as vasoconstriction. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does, although it never mentions the word 'vasodilation'. But the actual sources it cites are not so certain. The first source,pmid:25138149, is clear that the symptoms are of vasoconstriction, and that "Many conditions and exposures have been linked to RCVS, including vasoactive drugs ...". The other source is equally clear that "The pathophysiology of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome is unknown." I still think we're better off not giving the impression that there's any respectable evidence that eating a chilli can cause RCVS. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Young blood transfusion 2

This page could use the attention of experienced medical editors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Not only is the article debate a mess, but the topic of young blood transfusion itself is. Natureium (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Nice writeup on editing to Circadian rhythm and Circadian clock in journal

Was cited in the signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Recent_research. Mentions @Looie496:.

• Benjakob, O; Aviram, R (June 2018). "A Clockwork Wikipedia: From a Broad Perspective to a Case Study". Journal of biological rhythms. 33 (3): 233-244. doi:10.1177/0748730418768120. PMID 29665713.  Published April 17, 2018.

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The authors of the paper were interested in feedback here. Boghog (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

They really only mentioned me because my identity is public knowledge. My activities in this article have pretty much been confined to maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view maintaining pages is vital work. And one of the things that the paper focused on, was what a good job you all have done over time, updating the article as our knowledge of these systems has grown. It is so great that you all have done that, and also great that it was recognized by the authors of the paper. So thanks for that work! Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And I will add, that this is a particular ax of mine. In my view WMF marketing people generally, especially with regard to outreach, puts way too much emphasis on new page creation and not enough on maintenance, which is SO IMPORTANT but gets none of glamour that people put on new pages. It is one reason I am delighted that this paper a) focused on maintenance and b) found us not wanting. (We got lucky on the latter, as there are topics where we would be found very wanting, if anybody analyzed them this way.) Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, you don't see these articles pop up on google news... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This paper unfortunately contains very sad news about a key editor in that area. I'm updating the relevant pages now.[6] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I actually contacted arbcom about that before i posted anything as it is an OUTING thing but they said it is fine. I still wasn't going to mention it. But i am glad you did. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Monomelic amyotrophy

I have completely revised Monomelic amyotrophy in my sandbox:

revised Monomelic amyotrophy.

In about 36 hours I'll replace the old page with my revision, as the new page -- and duck. In the meantime, I appreciate your feedback either on the talk page Talk:MMA Revised or alternately MY talk page User_talk:GeeBee60.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

commented at user/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've placed a Peer Review request. I think the article is good, in part because it has been further edited by 4 experienced editors. My dilemma is that I haven't figured out how best to cut and paste the revision from my sandbox (see above) without loosing all the history attributions of the work of the other editors. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk to an admin about a WP:HISTMERGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User talk:WhatamIdoing. I posted a summary and request for this in the Teahouse. Maybe not the right place, but it will at least break up their routine.

peer review needed

Wikipedia:Peer review/Monomelic amyotrophy/archive1 have done a few edits as well, needs someone else to look at it, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Calcification

Just came across the article calcification and was shocked at what a giant mess it is...definitely needs a lot of improvement. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like it used to be alright, albeit short. Oldid here. Maybe restore to this version and work from here? BazinD (talk · contribs) seems to have done some copyvio and then added the current content after being reverted. --Treetear (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That lead! :O Natureium (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Permalink to that version, for those interested. --Treetear (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Honourable Mention

Seems that we've been noticed. http://www.cancernetwork.com/news/misinformation-rampant-among-cancer-patients LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, its a good mention, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

*sigh* At least some people think that Wikipedia is somewhat reliable for medical information. (Thank you for posting the link, LeadSongDog.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of medicine

This article/essay came up in the new pages queue. Thoughts? Natureium (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I smell a sock. Hm. This will take some looking into. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah and it's not a real topic (too vague/general for RS) - the article is full of WP:OR/WP:SYN; needs deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's quite vague.. it seems like all the subheadings would really be better as their own pages (with better wording of course). For instance, he included a "Scandals" heading and included a handful of scandals, but if we had a "Scandals in medicine" article we could populate it with millions of bytes of information. How did they choose those specific examples? It reads more like an essay because the examples are seemingly arbitrary. The sources are pretty good, it looks like he's interfaced about this article with many members of this WP, as evident through his talk page. I don't think deletion is in order until we figure out which direction to take the article in. I also think each section needs to have a "main article" to direct to if they are going to remain brief. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There's some good material here. I'm not certain it all fits together under that WP:FORKy title. Better to integrate this content into other articles, I'd've thought. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately all over the place. It also fails to recognize that there is no such thing as "mainstream medicine", but only "medicine". Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's one POV, and it is not universally shared. And you know, there is actually value in being able to differentiate between different types of legally regulated behavior, e.g., the kind that involves setting broken bones vs. the kind that involves physicians prescribing cough syrup for a cold. I'm not sure what that POV calls prescribing useless stuff, but the law calls it "practicing medicine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I nominated it for deletion: WP:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of medicine. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• note - i dearchived this, in this same diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• The page was renamed, so i have fixed the header. It was deleted per this AFD. That decision was overturned at DRV, here. There is now another AFD running. here. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN - Bullet wounds

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles might be interest to this community vis-a-vis WP:MEDRS and otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

FA

Seppi's page is on the front page today. Congrats! Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

awesome!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia