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

    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]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Healthline blacklist

    [edit]

    On the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: A user claiming to represent Healthline says they want Wikipedia to reevaluate the 2023 decision to blacklist Healthline from Wikipedia. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hydrogen therapy

    [edit]

    Discussion at noticeboard. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom case

    [edit]

    It looks like we're going to have an ArbCom case about articles related to transgender health care. The list of "parties" is uncertain, but any editor is allowed to provide relevant information once the case is underway. If you have information related to this subject, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Evidence and argumentation to learn more about how you might be able to help.

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Alcoholism

    [edit]

    Alcoholism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Aspirin

    [edit]

    Aspirin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lancet commentary

    [edit]

    Could anyone email me PMID 39577905? I doubt it can be used in an article, per commentary, but I need to see it to be sure, because ... top journal and top content expert = could be DUE somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure sent Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, Doc James ... interesting commentary and questions, but nothing I can add or change anywhere, best I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Wikipedians by medical condition and its subcats have been nominated for discussion

    [edit]

    Category:Wikipedians by medical condition has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Healthline vs WebMD?

    [edit]

    WebMD is included in WP:MEDRS as usually being suitable for uncontroversial information, and a search for current usage gives ~2,250 results. In contrast, Healthline is deprecated and blacklisted, a result that isn’t likely to change given a recent RSN discussion. However, looking at that discussion, it seems to me that the two sources have a number of similarities:

    • Like Healthline, WebMD fails to meet the basic standard of rejecting homeopathy; the main page for homeopathy claims that "research is mixed". Other pages include quotes such as you may want to try homeopathic remedies rather than antibiotics [2] and some research does show that homeopathic remedies may help control blood sugar [3]. I checked a couple of other types of alt med and found similar issues.
    • Both sites have been criticized for misinformation, among other things (see WebMD#Criticism; the article is arguably more negative than Healthline's, as Healthline#Reception contains a mix of positives and negatives).
    • Also, I found published comparisons for two topics (diabetes and fractures). One [4] rates the sites as having similar quality (see Table 2; WebMD has a slightly better DISCERN score and a slightly worse CRAAP score), and the second [5] finds WebMD to be slightly worse (Table 7, DISCERN score). The latter also rates Wikipedia as having the highest score out of all websites evaluated.

    There are certainly some differences as well (e.g. Healthline is also owned by Red Ventures), but the above points still indicate major concerns. As a result, should the reliability of WebMD on biomedical topics be reconsidered? And if so, should it also be taken to an RfC at RSN? Sunrise (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing I've used webMD for was to verify that the colloquial term "flare" was commonly used to describe symptom exacerbation in non-medical settings. I couldn't find a MEDRS source (and also whether a colloquial term is used is not biomed info, so doesn't need a MEDRS source).
    I'm inclined towards depreciating WebMD, as anything that's uncontroversial enough to be on there should also be in a MEDRS source. Even if it does mean I need some other source to verify that people say "flare" and mean more symptoms. Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could remove WebMD from the sentence in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources. I don't think it is necessary to expunge all uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against that but why treat WebMD differently to Healthline? Daphne Morrow (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior discussions showed some level of support for WebMD.[6][7][8][9] I don't remember any favorable discussions about Healthline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Microvascular ischemia

    [edit]

    I have just redirected Microvascular ischemia to Ischemia. Is that the best target? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Seems that Microvascular Ischemia page had nothing written on it anyways. DrTheHistorian✎ 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A title change for Kernicterus

    [edit]

    I have proposed a title change for Kernicterus page to Bilirubin Encephalopathy, but since this article has few traffic the proposed change hasn't had a single comment yet. I'm posting it here so it can get attention and input on its talk page regarding the title change. DrTheHistorian✎ 15:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @DrtheHistorian, if you don't get any objections in the next few days, please feel free to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tartrazine and animal skin transparency

    [edit]

    A couple of editors wanting to add material on animal studies show tartazine makes skin 'more transparent'. Could use eyes. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Neurodiversity has an RfC

    [edit]

    Neurodiversity has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Neurodiversity#RfC-Relevant or not has been withdrawn. There is an active discussion on the page (above that section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Foo is when bar..."

    [edit]

    The is when construction for definitions is pretty universally panned by usage manuals for a variety of reasons (circular, imprecise, not time-related, etc.). Of all articles using this clause, a disproportionate number appear to be found in articles on biomed-related topics, as compiled from this advanced search (slow link, be patient). I have fixed Breech birth, Nuchal cord, and Ictal bradycardia. Here is a partial list of other articles using the is-when clause, either in the lead sentence or somewhere in the body to define a term:

    Thanks, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC); updated by Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did three more (struck above). Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Legal history of cannabis in the United States

    [edit]

    Legal history of cannabis in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic cigarette could use some help

    [edit]

    The Electronic cigarette article has a number of issues including over-long sections and statements that are not well supported, and sometimes directly contradict, the cited reference. There is a fair amount of recent discussion at Talk:Electronic cigarette, including a list of related articles that could also use attention. The editors there seem eager for help addressing problems created by an editor who has since been tbanned from editing this topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are short of time please could you at least check the lead of Health effects of electronic cigarettes and comment on the talk page of that article. As that lead is now excerpted to the electronic cigarette article any improvements you suggest for that might be read by a lot of people or picked up by AI and so have an effect on the real world Chidgk1 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you only have 10 minutes please please please check the first paragraph of Health effects of electronic cigarettesChidgk1 (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    OLSPub

    [edit]

    Of possible relevance to us:

    • Förstner KU, Albers M, Rebholz-Schuhmann D, Seidlmayer E, Castro LJ, Lippert K (28 May 2025). "Open Life Science Publication database (OLSPub) – Strengthening the Biomedical Research Community by Building a Resilient and Sustainable Solution". Zenodo. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.15533302.

    Proposed as an open and designed-to-be-available drop-in replacement for PUBMED which, it is feared, is not long for this world – at least as a freely-available resource. Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    interesting read--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback request: Biography of Dr. Henry Xiang

    [edit]

    Hello WikiProject Medicine members,

    I am seeking feedback on a draft Wikipedia biography of Dr. Henry Xiang, a physician-scientist and injury epidemiologist. He is Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at The Ohio State University and Founding Director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

    Dr. Xiang has published widely in trauma, pain management, and digital health innovation (e.g., virtual reality for pediatric pain and AI-supported triage). The draft includes independent media coverage (e.g., ScienceDaily, Pediatrics Nationwide), NIH and CDC-funded research, and multiple national recognitions.

    The article is here: User:HenryXiangNCH/sandbox

    Any feedback on notability, neutrality, or references would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you!

    Henry Xiang — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryXiangNCH (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The draft is actually here: User:HenryXiangNCH/sandbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but there is no possibility of this draft being accepted as an article as it stands. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability, andWikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not CVs or resumes, and they need to be almost entirely based around, and cited to (with proper in-line citations), sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed for deletion (PROD): Peripheral vasculopathy

    [edit]

    FYI, the article Peripheral vasculopathy has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

    The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

    • "This article resembles a dictionary entry"

    If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the PROD tag. Being a short stub about a notable subject is not a valid reason to delete an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the PROD tag again. (It's a new editor, and it's not reasonable to expect new editors to know all of our many obscure rules, such as the rule that you can only PROD an article once.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notable academic for article creation: Alasdair MacLullich (COI declaration)

    [edit]

    Potential article: Professor Alasdair MacLullich

    [edit]

    Conflict-of-interest disclosure – I am Professor Alasdair MacLullich. Because I have a clear COI, I will not create or edit any article about myself; this note is only to alert interested editors.

    Why the subject appears to meet WP:PROF (notability for academics)

    • Developer of the 4 'A's Test (4AT) for delirium detection. The January 2023 update of NICE Clinical Guideline CG103 stated that "the committee agreed that the 4AT was the best option for most settings. It is among the most accurate of the tools reviewed, quick and simple to use, and has a broader range of evidence to support it."[1]
    • Independent evidence of clinical impact.
      • Meta-analysis:** Hou L, Zhang Q et al. (2023) pooled 11 studies and confirmed high diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT (sensitivity 87%, specificity 87%).[2]
      • Outcomes study:** An 82,770-patient two-centre cohort showed 4AT scores at admission predict mortality, length of stay and home-time.[3]
    • Documented large-scale uptake. Cleveland Clinic reports systematic screening with 4AT across its geriatric emergency departments.[4]
    • Professional leadership. Co-founder of the European Delirium Association (2006), the continent-wide society for delirium research and education, and served as President (2012-2015).[5]
    • Editorial leadership. Editor-in-Chief of Delirium[6] and Delirium Communications[7] journals (from 2025); previously Deputy Editor (2022-2025).
    • Major honours.
    • William Farr Medal (Worshipful Society of Apothecaries, 2017) – awarded for significant contributions to care of elderly people.[8]
    • Maeve Leonard Award (European Delirium Association, 2018) for outstanding contribution to delirium research and care.[9]
    • Deliriumologist of the Year (Australasian Delirium Association, 2018).[10]
    • Academic record. Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh (since 2009); >200 peer-reviewed publications; Google Scholar h-index 71 (as of July 2025).[11]

    If any editor would like to develop an article, I am happy to answer clarifying questions here. Thank you for your time. ~~~~ Avoreardon (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your work on 4AT and Delirium. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your contribution. I did start a draft User:Noxoug1/Alasdair MacLullich and would need to refine it before proposing it for main space. Noxoug1 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Rationale and impact: Delirium: prevention, diagnosis and management". National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 18 January 2023. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    2. ^ Hou, L; Zhang, Q (2023). "Diagnostic Accuracy of the 4AT for Delirium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 80: 103374. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103374. PMID 36584541. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
    3. ^ Anand, A; Cheng, M; Ibitoye, T; MacLullich, AMJ; Vardy, ERLC (2022). "Positive scores on the 4AT delirium assessment tool at hospital admission are linked to mortality, length of stay and home time: two-centre study of 82,770 emergency admissions". Age and Ageing. 51 (3): afac051. doi:10.1093/ageing/afac051. PMID 35292792. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
    4. ^ "Electronic Medical Records May Be Key to Diagnosing Delirium in Geriatric Emergency Patients". Consult QD. Cleveland Clinic. 11 October 2023. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    5. ^ MacLullich, AMJ; Meagher, DJ; Laurila, JV; Kalisvaart, KJ (2007). "The European delirium association". Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 62 (3): 397–8. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.01.004. PMID 17324691. {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
    6. ^ "Editorial Board". Delirium. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    7. ^ "Editorial Board". Delirium Communications. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    8. ^ "The William Farr Medal – list of recipients" (PDF). Worshipful Society of Apothecaries. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    9. ^ "The Maeve Leonard Award". European Delirium Association. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    10. ^ "Declared 2018 Conference". Australasian Delirium Association. Retrieved 10 July 2025.
    11. ^ "Alasdair MacLullich - Google Scholar". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 July 2025.

    Requested move at Talk:Cadaver#Requested move 3 July 2025

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cadaver#Requested move 3 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 06:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Kernicterus#Proposing a Title change to Bilirubin Encephalopathy

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kernicterus#Proposing a Title change to Bilirubin Encephalopathy that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 06:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychogenic disorders

    [edit]

    Hi, I dont really know how this works, never really got into editing Wikipedia

    If there are any interested editors with full editing priveleges to merge and create new articles, would someone consider taking a pass at the many articles that Wikipedia have about functional and psychogenic disorders. Right now the wikipedia has numerous articles talkign about basically the same thing such as Functional disorder, Functional somatic syndrome, Psychogenic disease, Psychogenic illness. probably others which i havent seen or forgot to mention that all talk about the same thing and basically incorrectly separate/classify the disorders, in contradiction to at least the current (and hoenstly historical too) medical literature. For example, numerous articles redirect or mention the Somatic symptom disorder as if it's the same thing as a functional disorder which is just not the case. Somatic symptom disorder itself claims or implies that it's the same as a psychosomatic illness, which is essentially a mistake. Somatic symptom disorder is simply the condition where the person incorrectly responds to a symptom or a group of symptoms. The literature is very clear, it makes no claim as to whether symptoms are caused by psychological factors or not. One can imagine a person with terminal pancreatic cancer who catastrophises everything and hence has the somatic symptom disorder, yet the wikipedia implies that a bona fide psychogenic illness (e.g. when the person has chronic tachycardia due to an anxiety disorder) is identical to the somatic symtpom disorder.

    Sorry if im drivelling away here, but the point stands, the current classification on wikipedia essentially contradicts the established scholarship. If someone could reclassify it all (while keeping historical articles standalone when necessary such as the case of the admittedly outdated Conversion disorder) that would be great.

    I am thinking maybe keep those that were present in historical or current ICD/DSM databases as standalone articles, and maybe merge everything else into a single article (e.g. the psychogenic disorder), and then rework the somatic symptom disorder article in accordance with the current literature so that it no longer claims that it's identical to the classical psychosomatic/psychogenic concept, which it is not? 5.44.170.181 (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing out this problem. I'd love to have you create an account (free! no e-mail required!) and start cleaning up these articles.
    I think the main thing that would help other volunteers is a high-quality, recent source that explains the similarities and differences. One approach this group has used in the past, for similarly related-but-slightly-different subjects, is to have a paragraph towards the top of each article that says something like "Foo differs from Bar in that Foo is a more mauvy shade of pinky-russet, where as Bar..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    COVID medical cases charts all broken?

    [edit]

    I noticed recently that all of the "location medical cases chart" templates used on COVID articles are broken. They can all be found here: [10]. These charts duplicate the year and month buttons at the top so instead of reading 2020-2021-2022-2023, they read 2020-2020-2021-2021-2022-2022-2023-2023. The first of each duplicate is automatically selected, as are I think all months, with no way of de-selecting them, which causes the entire chart to be expanded all the way. Example: Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/Washington State medical cases chart On articles this causes the text to the left of the template to be squished and makes the article appear a lot longer than it actually is.

    The template sometimes breaks the citations in the Reference section at the bottom of the article because of how far down it extends, for example on COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state). On this article when using MonoBook and Timeless skins, the citations and template overlap and the citations are displayed on top of the template. For Vector 2022 (the default appearance) when the main menu is on the left, the template causes the reference section to be a single line downwards, making the article so long it is not feasible to use the scroll wheel to reach the bottom. If the main menu is hidden, then it overlaps like for MonoBook and Timeless. For MinervaNeue, the template doesn't align right (with text scrunched on the left) but instead aligns left and pushes everything after it down. On mobile, the template does the same as MinervaNeue but with the added effects that the template doesn't display the bars by default but instead has a long series of "Show" tabs and the years and months at the top of the template don't appear at all.

    The issue appears regardless of if I am logged in or not, regardless of skin/appearance, and regardless of web browser. I even cleared my cookies and other history, but it doesn't seem like it's an issue on my side. Another editor mentioned that they are broken for them too.[11] I've only noticed this recently, so it seems like a relatively new problem. I'm not familiar with editing this template so I don't know how to fix this. Does everyone have this issue? This problem is extremely disruptive to every article affected, which are hundreds, so if it's not just me but everyone and it can't be fixed then the templates need to all be removed. I'm posting this here since this page has high traffic. Velayinosu (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alexiscoutinho:, @Ahecht: Velayinosu (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have something to do with the collapsible elements' newer js, perhaps an incompatibility, because using my old modified jquery.makeCollapsible.js still makes the charts collapse properly. Currently looking for the exact cause of the issue affecting general users. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1300406667"