Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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

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

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

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Kinds of Sinopharm vaccines

Suriname (northeastern South American country) received 100.000 Sinopharm vaccines on Monday. Does someone know what the name of those vaccines is? Because when I read the article of BBIBP-CorV, it says: "CorV, also known as the Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine, is one of two inactivated virus COVID-19 vaccines developed by Sinopharm's Beijing Institute of Biological Products". Can I be sure that it must be BBIBP-CorV, or is it the other vaccine? Thank you in advance. Ymnes (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Albertaont, Ftrebien, and Inimesh: as you have written on this subject, may I invite you to join this talk section? Ymnes (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ymnes: This video mentions the Sinopharm vaccine which was approved by the WHO, which would make it BBIBP-CorV. ATV-Networks Suriname Albertaont (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Albertaont: Thank you for your answer! I wanted to be sure and didn't want to link incorrectly. Ymnes (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any better sources. The government website only says that it was donated by Sinopharm. I've only seen BBIBP donations so far. For verifiability, I suggest adding a footnote referencing the video with the justification provided by Albertaont. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ftrebien. Ymnes (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Retracted covid-19 vaccine paper

Journal Retracts Terrible Study That Claimed Widespread Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths https://gizmodo.com/journal-retracts-terrible-study-that-claimed-widespread-1847219596

Even with this decision, some scientists have questioned how the paper got through the peer-review process in the first place. Two of the three reviewers were anonymous, and none brought up any of the issues that resulted in the retraction. The current fiasco isn’t the only one to have involved MDPI, the publisher of Vaccines and many other open-access journals. In its past, some scientists have accused MDPI of being a predatory publisher, more eager about the quantity than the quality of the research it publishes—criticisms that were still being made this year before the latest retracted paper.

2600:1000:B018:7C7F:D82F:9E22:1AFF:3418 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If I remember right, all MDPI journals are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia. I guess this just shows that we are right to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

MDPI journals are in the 50–50 range. There are editors who would rather remove them than go to the trouble of figuring out whether the specific journal is okay. Looking at https://www.scopus.com/sources is one (NB: not "the only" or "the best", just "one") way to evaluate a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP gives MDPI a yellow flag and calls them "questionable"; the general tone of discussions I've observed is to consider MDPI journals on a case-by-case basis. Even in areas with lower stakes than medicine, though, I wouldn't trust them too far; it's not clear that being published in an MDPI journal is generally better than putting out a preprint on the arXiv, bioRxiv, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• An article in an MDPI journal making surprising vaccine claims, with the lead author Harald Walach!? It's hard to think of anything dodgier. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Medrxiv

Dear members, please find {{medRxiv}} template similar to {{bioRxiv}} for usage/citing medRxiv preprints. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

very useful template--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible reference in article, Medical torture that may not meet MEDRS

I was running citation bot and as I was checking a few of the changes it made on my behalf, i noticed on this diff, reference #12 doesn't appear to link to an actual article, but some sort of Category page on the New Yorker's website. Rather, then just remove it, thus leaving absolutely no reference in its place, I would say something here, to see what steps should (if any) happen next. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Zppix, the actual source appears to be:

Nast, Condé (28 June 2004). "Plan B". The New Yorker.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thanks, I will fix it! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Population based study vs randomised controlled trials?

Which to follow when they disagree? Can anyone answer my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ginkgo_biloba about whether aspirin should be removed from the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, we generally want to find a review article that decides which studies are better, instead of having editors analyze the sources themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, for more information on the reasoning for this, see also WP:MEDASSESS (as well as WP:MEDRS more generally). 86.186.155.155 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Ah thanks - so is this a review article? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966631/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, yes, that's a review article. It's also in a 60-year-old, MEDLINE-indexed journal, on the Index Medicus, with above-average metrics, which suggests that it should be a good source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(And from searching PubMed, it also appears to be the only MEDRS-compatible review article available on the topic.) 86.186.120.193 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating Reliable Sources

Hi everyone, I am most pleased to be here. It is my first interaction here and I hope this proves to be the most beneficial forum to me. I will love to know this: In a situation where you have to choose between a reliable health website like webmd and a University website like Johns Hopkins as a source for inline citation, which should come first? GalactosemiaAtaxia (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine, @GalactosemiaAtaxia. I really appreciate your work to add sources to articles.

Have you tried PubMed at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ? If you filter for "reviews" (plus meta-analyses and systematic reviews, if you want), and look at sources in the last five years or so, then you'd probably find something better than any website. (Of course, if you're trying to source general/background information, then research papers won't necessarily be as helpful. But it's where I start, so of course I think it's a good option.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing thank you so much for your continued guidance here. I will try the filtering henceforth. However, there is certain general information that journals won't cover.

Naming COVID-19 vaccine articles

Frustrated with the current lay titles of COVID-19 vaccine articles that go against WP:MEDTITLE right from its very first sentence, yesterday I posted two RfCs to move two vaccine articles to the INN names:

• Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 3 July 2021
• Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 3 July 2021

Yet, it seems that a large portion of commenters prefer the easy, familiar names used by the popular press, and they frequently quote WP:COMMONNAME.

How would you see the relation between MEDTITLE and COMMONNAME? Which one takes precedence in case of conflict?

Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, I haven't looked at the discussions. Are you familiar with the background on vaccine naming in general? Vaccines usually aren't generic drugs (each manufacturer's version is unique and non-interchangeable, although that should be less true for the RNA vaccines than for conventional types), so they should usually be named the same way you would handle another name-brand product.

(Also, you meant to set those up as Wikipedia:Requested moves, not RFCs, right?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Yes, but the manufacturing method or number of manufacturers (one vs many) is irrelevant. Of course, there is a difference between proprietary and generic drugs, we all here know it very well I hope. Yet, our naming convention applies to all drugs, not to generic drugs only. These two vaccines have WHO-assigned INNs, and so our naming rule should equally apply in my view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The manufacturing method makes a huge difference. These are biologics, not small molecule drugs. The one that I make with my cell line is not actually identical to the one you make with your cell line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Surprise surprise, gene therapy drugs have all been assigned INN names by the WHO and are all listed on Wikipedia under these names. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The general rule is that predictable molecules get an INN but biologics are named by another group: "Within the INN Programme, names have not been assigned to natural human blood products or vaccines. For those groups of biological products, the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) has been adopting the scientific names of the biological products within the definitions of respective requirements."

Since these mRNA vaccines seem to have been given INNs, the question on wiki is whether to follow our convention for naming vaccines, or our convention for following therapies that have INNs. Both approaches are nominally "correct" according to our guidelines and long-standing practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you wrote

We NEVER use brand names if INN names exist (there is only one exception to-date that I'm aware of, for a very strong reason).

— https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine&diff=1031816794&oldid=1031815568

What is the brand-name exception and the reason for the exception? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow, I suspect that you are looking for the article about "Dextroamphetamine saccharate and amphetamine aspartate monohydrate and dextroamphetamine sulfate and amphetamine sulfate". The archives are full of discussions about the correct name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I had in mind Autologous CD34+ enriched cell fraction that contains CD34+ cells transduced with retroviral vector that encodes for the human ADA cDNA sequence; the reason appears similar. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

LGBT reproduction quality scale

I recently created the article LGBT reproduction and it has not yet been assessed on the quality scale. I did this simply by adding the template to the talk page, so I'm unsure if I didn't follow proper protocol and didn't have it reviewed properly SiliconProphet (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You did well, @SiliconProphet. Anyone can rate any article except for Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles. If you like doing this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment for the FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

request for suggestions for article names - I wish to split Human–animal breastfeeding

I have written a brief note at Talk:Human-animal breastfeeding. I note that the article is included under your project umbrella. Would anyone care to offer ideas there? Many thanks.--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The page is doubtless included under the MED project because of its pertinence to human health (for example, as a means of suckling human babies). And I believe that only content related to human health would fall under MED-project guidelines such as WP:MED and WP:MEDMOS. So I suspect the page-scope / naming issues that interest you *might* not be primarily governed by specific MED-project considerations. Though of course editors here could be grateful to you for alerting them to the question/s, and might want to join the conversation. 86.186.120.193 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

New creator creating a medical article, please help

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and everything and wanted to create an article that really should exist. I need some guidance on the sources I've put in and the article's structure. Some other editors recommended I remove the sources, specifically youtube videos of the doctor explaining as they are primary sources that would not be up to par for medical article standards. You can find the draft at Draft:Slipping rib syndrome. --Eswong3 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I was the editor who asked that Eswong be careful with the YouTube videos. As I understand it, Hansen is a doctor and is established in his field, but I think they constitute preliminary findings and I didn't think them appropriate. Regardless, the condition appears to be notable and should have an article. Eswong3 is brand new to editing, and is doing so in a difficult subject area, so anyone with familiarity who can provide them with better guidance than me—a non-medical editor—will have my gratitude! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eswong3: For medical articles, wikipedia prefers systematic reviews because they place research in context (primary sources can rather disagree, and at times a single source may be misleading, we can outsource the contextualization to the review system). You might try using google scholar to find a research paper that discusses the wrok of this doctor instead. WP:MEDRS discusses what the community consensus has found to be a "good" source in terms of what tends to make better wikipedia articles. Talpedia (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eswong3: While systematic reviews (and/or meta-analysis) of randomized-controlled/comparative trials are preferred for any specific claims of clinical efficacy, recent review articles from scientifically respected journals are good for descriptive content (e.g. Symptoms, Characteristics, etc, etc) as are textbooks and practice guidelines, etc (for further info, see WP:MEDDEF, WP:MEDSCI, and WP:MEDRS in general).
In particular, PubMed retrieves several recent review articles [1] from a variety of journals, some of which could potentially be MEDRS compliant (for example, PMID 30078490 in Am J Med Sci). Scattered among the numerous results returned by GoogleBooks for the phrase "slipping rib syndrome", there are some potential textbook-type recent MEDRS (e.g. [2] [3]...). At first glance [4], there wouldn't appear to be many mentions of the condition in practice guidelines.
Hope this helps a little, 86.169.96.61 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: Hello and thank you for responding, I'm the person that's been working collaboratively with Eswong3 on Draft:Slipping rib syndrome page. Unfortunately, besides the research article of Dr. Hansen's technique by Hansen et al., there isn't much else on the subject that mentions his method of repair besides Rudolph and Nam, who did a case report using resection versus rib plating (Dr. Hansen's method). That is the only article that I can find that cites Dr. Hansen's research, so I do not believe there are other articles currently that mention it. There is no meta-analysis on the subject that mentions his technique that I can find. Would an acceptance path of action be to utilize the study and the case report temporarily until meta-analysis of the topic can be completed? Would we be able to insert a disclaimer of some sort to state it should be improved upon as more research and review is conducted? Or, would it be best to not include the Hansen technique at all? Thank you! Jebbles (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jebbles: I think I can reply to that. The short answer is: Any sort of biomedical claim regarding the technique studied in PMID 32330472 would require appropriate reliable medical sourcing, per the WP:MEDRS guidelines. Period.
Given the focus on Dr. Hansen and his work it also appears that both you and Eswong3 may conceivably have relevant conflicts of interest here, per WP:MEDCOI. If so, these would need to be declared. At the same time, new contributors who genuinely wish to help improve Wikipedia's health-related content in an unbiased way are always very welcome here and highly valued (hence the work I put today into my response above, which it seems may have escaped your attention). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

To respond as a watcher of the page to the ABF here, I've been giving Jebbles editing advice on Discord and have absolutely no cause to believe either that they have a COI or that they're ignoring advice on how to discern MEDRS sources. Vaticidalprophet 13:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the present case, expert contributions could be extremely welcome here as long as there is no promotional angle (such as this). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I believe I can not ping you so I hope you see this, also pardon I didn't sign before (added it in just now if that is alright), I'm new to this, lots to learn! I hadn't seen your revision of your comment before, my apologies, I believe we may have posted at similar times so it completely escaped me. I just reviewed what you had posted and it definitely helps a lot. I reviewed the links and I believe two in particular may be appropriate, however I will purchase the articles to confirm. If there is no review/meta-analysis deemed appropriate by MEDRS for biomedical claims like you have mentioned, it will be void from the article. Jebbles (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jebbles (no problem - a forum-typical misunderstanding :). Really happy to hear you're both independently motivated. Contributing good medical content to Wikipedia is definitely good! 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you! You provided some excellent resources that I had overlooked. The section has since been removed until me, eswong3, or another helpful contributer can find reliable and appropriate resource on it! Thank you again!! Jebbles (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jebbles! 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jebbles: Just a heads-up: Before "purchasing" any potential-MEDRS articles, it's probably worth your while to let us know here which ones you have in mind, so that other MEDRS regulars can provide an opinion too to reach a consensus. Decisions regarding the appropriateness of any given potential MEDRS may depend on the sort of claim you need to source (for instance, the stronger the claim, the stronger the sourcing that is required). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding (and rememering to re-ping @Jebbles:): Also, other editors may be able to help provide you with the pdf without the need for purchase. 86.169.96.61 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eswong3 and @Jebbles, welcome to the English Wikipedia. This book is a bit on the old side (8 years old), but it might be useful for supporting background information and history. Also, if you haven't tried it before, searching under other names (especially the 1919 eponym) might find you more sources.

If you add a copy of Template:Medical resources at the end of the page, then I believe that the ICD code is M89.8X8. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

fyi/fwiw, I actually tried playing around with some alternative search terms (e.g. "hooking maneuver"), but *felt* they didn't have the potential to add much.... Errhum... In reality, the associated MeSH term, "Tietze's syndrome" (D013991 in Template:Medical resources), actually adds two [5] or three [6] (I've been filtering from "since 2016", in somewhat strict adherence to WP:MEDDATE). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing In terms of the Tietze syndrome, it is separate from what SRS is. We'll try to play around with the wording of the searches and see if anything new pops up. I think the most difficult is the newer method of rib stabilization since there is less literature on it so we may leave it out for now. --Eswong3 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jebbles:@Eswong3:Yes (jumping in here :), I was about to add that the 2 additional reviews ([7]) retrieved using the associated MeSH term "Tietze syndrome" may or may not be pertinent. Of note, MeSH is a controlled vocabulary that is designed for indexing/search purposes (and not for disease classification), which sort of explains the apparent discrepancy. 86.169.96.61 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eswong3:Regarding a novel technique, in general it may be necessary to wait until there's some MEDRS-compatible coverage (sufficient to allow some mention at least under ==Research directions==[?]). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that "Cyriax" might be the more relevant search term. Tietze seems to involve a different set of ribs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Yes, Cyriax is the person who first described the condition. We'll look into some research under that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eswong3 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@WAID and @Eswong3:: Yes, though "slipping rib syndrome" actually maps to D013991 ("Tietze's syndrome") in MeSH. Fwiw, entering search terms in PubMed such as "cyriax syndrome" or "cyriax" [8] doesn't seem to retrieve any additional pertinent medrs within the last 5 years. 86.169.96.61 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much to you lot for helping! In re: purchasing articles, I had this one in mind as it may have some information that would be essential for the treatment section, as I see from the abstract it differentiates between management of symptoms and definitive treatment for SRS. I am unable to access it in any other way. In addition, I also wanted to confirm wording/appropriateness of how I had written the causes section. I used the reviews available, including two articles that one of you had recommended! I found the book particularly helpful with a really good foundation of information. I understand the reviews conducted on the subject state the etiology isn't certain, but several assumptions/theories are proposed. I did not want to state anything for a fact, but looking at WP:MED and their guidelines I wonder if it can be frowned upon in a way. I'm a bit confused and probably overthinking it, but I just wanted to make sure before I cause havoc! I can provide examples of what is said in the sources if needed for clarification! :) Jebbles (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lung cancer on the Main Page

@Gog the Mild says that Lung cancer will appear on the Main Page on 4 August 2021: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lung cancer#TFA blurb review

If you'll be around then, please put the article on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Have watched. I note that this is a 2007 promotion not reviewed since that isn't marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 and which Sandy's sand[y]box thinks needs further review. Can someone more adept with cancer than me take a look through? (Been some recent discussion on my talk about out-of-shape cancer FAs.) Vaticidalprophet 07:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the main editors, especially User:Axl, have edited the article very recently. It doesn't seem in tooo bad shape though. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there are about five sources from the 1990s, one that claims to be from 1980 but isn't (because it's a webpage, and the World Wide Web didn't exist in 1980), and a lot from 2006 and 2007. Some updating would help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Doll British Doctors' Survey ref should remain. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been rather busy so I haven't made time to edit/review "Lung cancer" recently. Some historical context: I undertook a major revision to the article in 2010. This was after a change in Wikipedia's referencing guidance, specifically with respect to use of secondary sources rather than primary. In 2018, I updated the staging section, in line with the new guidance from the major medical organizations.

I shall try to make some time over the next few days to review and update the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Axl. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny

Vaginal disease contains puerile and misogynistic vandalism and has done so for the past 10 months and before (see IP edits in article history). --81u (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch, @81u. I've started the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Such a useful contribution this from a new editor. @Jebbles: Really appreciated here. Thank you. 86.174.206.11 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I later read in WP:VANDAL that I most likely should have done some things differently, but seeing the history of how statements/information that is void of any medical citations in the section since at least May 2020, I thought I'd get the ball rolling. There's no place for blatant misogyny like that. I've also added it to my permanent watchlist! :) Sorry if my actions were a little bit rash and newbie! Jebbles (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You did fine. If you like checking for that kind of problem, then you might be interested in this link to recent changes for medicine-related articles. If you see unsalvageable vandalism, then 'undo' it. If it's just not-so-great editing, then it's helpful if you can fix problems. If you're really not sure (or just not interested), then it's 100% okay to leave it and go on to your next contribution.

As a note of caution: If you undo an edit, and someone else puts it back, your next step should be to get help. Don't just keep removing it over and over again by yourself. Sometimes solving a problem takes a team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Biosimilars in Infobox drug

It is proposed to add data point/parameter Biosimilars to {{Infobox drug}}. Please take a look at Template talk:Infobox drug § Biosimilars (and biologics). -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Old" featured articles - Acute myeloid leukemia

Hi all, WP:URFA is working on assessing and updating featured articles that haven't been updated in a long time. The oldest unreviewed medicine FA is now Acute myeloid leukemia, a September 2006 promotion. A group of us are gathering at Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia to plan an update to the article. If you're willing to help, please chime in there. If you're time-limited, even just chiming in with your assessment of the article's outstanding issues would be a big help. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino, I wonder if Lung cancer might be more urgent, given that it's scheduled to appear on the Main Page in a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:Featured article review - Alzheimer's disease

I've nominated Alzheimer's disease, a 2008 promotion, for featured article review. Those with sharp memories may remember SandyGeorgia's post here from Dec. 2020. Subsequently, a subject matter expert took a look at the article, shared her suggestions for an update, then got too busy at work and decided she doesn't have time to contribute here directly. Folks are welcome to share their thoughts at the FAR page on whether the article currently meets the featured article criteria, and if not, what updates might be needed. FARs typically remain open for a few weeks. If we aren't able to bring the article back up-to-code, then the next step is FARC, where folks discuss whether to pull the article from the FA list. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Delta variant

those interested may find this informative CDC in terms of new variant[9], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, CDC is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources per [10] and [11] Run n Fly (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ozzie would never suggest that anyone cite any news article for that kind of information. It was just a convenient summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Medical articles written by a prolific hoaxer

I have recently been trying to clean up a web of hoaxes by User:Klaus Bells and their sockpuppets; the context is described at User:Vahurzpu/July 2021 hoaxes. They wrote two medical articles, Hypotransferrinemia and HFE H63D gene mutation; can someone with appropriate medical knowledge look over those and verify their correctness? The article subjects are real, unlike the other articles that were entirely fake, and a spot check didn't turn up any blatant falsehoods. However, this since-deleted section gives me pause, and looking up that section's topic on Google Scholar gives preprints that I suspect are tied to the hoaxer.

Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hypotransferrinemia should probably redirect to atransferrinemia. The sources don't support the idea that it is a distinct condition from congenital atransferrinemia - OMIM and Orphanet list it as a synonym; Pathobiology of Human Disease states "hypotransferrinemia is a very uncommon autosomal recessive disorder where transferrin is very low or absent (atransferrinemia)"; Hemochromatosis: Genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment has a section titled "Hereditary atransferrinemia (hypotransferrinemia)", etc... several of the other sources are not directly related to the topic. The redirect is a little ambiguous since the term 'hypotransferrinemia' can technically refer to low transferrin from any cause rather than strictly congenital hypotransferrinemia, but it seems to be more commonly used in the latter sense. Spicy (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Request of participation in a discussion at Talk:ZyCoV-D

Dear members, there is a dispute regarding addition of this information in ZyCoV-D COVID-19 vaccine page. I would like to request members to participate if anyone is willing to help or resolve. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Are medical sources appropriate for every article?

This is just a random question but are medical sources appropriate for every article on a topic? I’m just asking?CycoMa (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a point to this particular question, or are you fishing for an answer you can use elsewhere? --Calton | Talk 06:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I had this one discussion with another user. And I told them that medical sources aren’t appropriate for biology related articles.CycoMa (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was vague and unhelpful, but it shows that, yeah, you were fishing for a specific answer. If you want an actual answer, try being more specific about content and why you don't think medical sources are appropriate wherever that content is. --Calton | Talk 06:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine it was the article sex. Which is mainly a biology article, one user thought it would be a good idea to include medical sources. I told them that it’s probably not ideal to include medical sources on an article like that.CycoMa (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What am I getting a strong sense of déjà vu? The scope of WP:MEDRS is WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn sorry did I ever have a run in with you before?CycoMa (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of a lot of noticeboard time being burned on what seem like POV pushing expeditions wrt sex and gender, and wikilawyering the scope of MEDRS has been an unfortunate recent craze. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I have been accused of POV pushing a lot but in reality all I’m doing is trying represent mainstream biology on this topic. It’s honestly very tiring that reliable sources have their own agendas. Making my job alot harder.CycoMa (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m doing is trying represent mainstream biology on this topic.

No, you're pushing a point of view that you think represents mainstream biology, and rules-lawyering -- including forum-shopping -- to exclude things which contradict it. --Calton | Talk 15:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The original question seems oddly phrased, but yes, it is entirely possible that material in a biology article like sex could fall within the remit of Wikipedia:Biomedical information. That goes for any material in any article that can reasonably be thought to pertain to human health. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you for that. That’s all I need to know.CycoMa (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fringe rumors in Dissociative identity disorder

Please have a look at this (produced by a notorious activist). --Saidmann (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Question on updating and/or adding Cochrane references

Hello - I've been editing for about a year working to add and/or update references for Cochrane systematic reviews in related medical articles. I am not a medical professional. I am retired and enjoy spending a bit if time with Wikipedia in this manner, my professional background was in behavioral health and addiction services. Recently an editor pointed out to me that I had updated a reference that was "embargoed" until sometime next year. I will admit that I had never noticed this before but upon further research found this to be true in a number of cases. The result was an updated reference where the full text of a review was not available, only the summary. I had thought that the PubMed summary was sufficient in the past and that many, if not most general Wikipedia users would not have full access to articles anyway unless they were associated with a university or medical system. Can someone clarify this for me? I don't want to do this incorrectly but had never come across this feedback before.

Thank you BDD user (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@BDD user, I haven't looked into this. Are these embargoed by the journal's publisher? In that case, it might be treated like a preprint that has already been accepted for publication (i.e., basically okay). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are embargoed by the journal's publisher, here's an example where the full article is not available until 4/21/2022. PMID 33880750

BDD user (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about using it for an "obvious" statement based on the abstract. It's not at all likely that the abstract will say "There are no good randomized controlled trials" and the body of the paper will say "Fooled you! There were multiple trials!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

BDD user, I think the problem is you live in the wrong country! See List of countries eligible for free one-click access to the Cochrane Library in 2017 and Regions with funded provision. I can read the whole paper and also the PDF. Contact me if you want to read it. Btw, when Googling, I found Outside the Box: Why are Cochrane reviews so boring?. Greenhalgh is the author of many great and very accessible articles about medical papers, some of which are cited by or giving as further reading in MEDRS. I thought the comment "the troubling aspect of this enterprise [Cochrane's systematic reviews] is not the few narrow questions that the reviews answer but the many broad ones they leave unanswered.". -- Colin°^Talk 09:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fraudulent Trials in Systematic Reviews – A Major Public Health Problem

"Now I'm seriously skeptical about all the systematic reviews I've ever done".[12]

This is horrifying, but also speaks directly to our mission to reflect "accepted knowledge". If systematic reviewers are skeptical of their reviews, where does that leave us, who regularly look to such reviews as the gold standard? Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Shocking! - Thanks for posting, I hope everyone takes/makes the time to watch this. CV9933 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's more than an hour long. Maybe someone could post an outline of the key points? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Background listening. Some points:

Systematic review editors trust papers are not fraudulent, outsourcing verification to journal editors who do not do due diligence.

Fraudulent research exists and has got into systematic reviews and influenced medical policy. The example of a revoked NHS guideline is given, and one of the speakers who wrote systematic reviews, gives examples of having discovered fraud in a paper he wrote.

Editors are non-responsive at times and not doing due diligent to prevent this. Speakers give example of nonresponse and "losing" data when requests are written

Some suggestions are made. Anonymized data should be recorded and available, a reputation economy where journals and individuals are ignored if fraudulant papers are written.

Examples are given where there are "open secrets" that work is fraudulent, but this does not show up in literature or retractions.

Some speakers cite fear of litigation as a reason that fraudulent work is not challenged. Talpedia (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. They are kind of asserting that more than 1% of papers results are fraudulent... I'm not sure I believe this. I think there's a bit of conflation of "bad methodolgy" with "fraud" going on at times. This issues affects *all* academic publication - it's just these people are helpful trying to solve it for systematic reviews, to avoid propagating the errors in reviews.

I think there's a bit of "don't go in the sausage factory" going on here - insofar as the results presented by systematic reviews may still be "mostly alright".

This reminds me of the "Bad Science" stuff that Ben Goldacre has been going on about forever.

A few thoughts come to mind here: the idea that there might be knowledge of "good paper/ bad paper" the floats around the scientific community, but is hidden from other people. I wonder how wikipedia could get access to this, and note that it is a recipe for bias. I note that the "completeness" of systematic reviews ties editors hands here - historically they might just "magically" decide to omit bad papers for unknown reasons. I guess they might still be able to magically say "bad methodology". Books and more theoretical works might avoid some of the problems of systematic review, since they represent the views of authors more than reviews.

I find the fear of litigation particularly interesting... Talpedia (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I watched the first 50 minutes at 1.5x speed. I agree it is shocking. It sounds like there is a real problem with fraudulent research and most journals making no effort whatsoever to detect it or to investigate for themselves, and not responding professionally to anyone questioning things. Even basics of phoning up the lead author's institution and asking whether or not they actually work there and whether they did such-and-such a trial. Data can be relatively easily statistically analysed for fabrication -- surely that could be outsourced to some team at low cost. One presenter suggested a checklist of things to look out for. I read "The Checklist Manifesto" recently and would agree that is a good idea. -- Colin°^Talk 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone posted this paper a while ago:

Else, Holly; Van Noorden, Richard (2021-03-25). "The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science". Nature. 591 (7851): 516–519. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5. ISSN 0028-0836.

and I suppose this is the obvious consequence: if fraudulent papers get published, then the fraudulent results will make their way into systematic reviews. The systems might be resilient enough to cope with a small amount of fraud, but eventually, it could take over the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Project members are invited to improve further, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideological contributions to articles on sex and gender, including intersex/DSD articles

A small number of editors are making radical changes to a range of articles, including articles within the scope of this project, aligned with views that presuppose that gamete size is the sole determinant of sex. Sex determination is far more complex in cases of intersex/DSD. Changes relevant to this project have been made to intersex, disorders of sex development, 5α-Reductase deficiency‎ and true hermaphroditism. Changes made in other associated pages include hermaphrodite, gynandromorphism, sex, sex and gender distinction, sex differences in humans, and also LGBT-focused pages such as non-binary gender and queer. The modus operandi appears to impose a narrow view of sex determination as uncontested and incontestable, remove all content on social, cultural or human rights aspects, and add material on gender and LGBT issues to make them as contestable and even ridiculous as possible (such as an attempt to add '[13]' to non-binary gender.

These changes are associated with narrow views about medicine and the diverse global settings where people with relevant traits - and Wikipedia readers - live. For example, recent changes to 5α-Reductase deficiency‎ have been justified on the talk page by an assertion that all infants go through sex chromosome testing that can identify whether or not that infant has the trait. That editor has just proposed a RfC on this little-watched talk page.

I would very much appreciate a wider range of eyes on these articles. Thank you. Trankuility (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)