The article says ''"Dermabrasion <b>should not be confused with</b> microdermabrasion which is a newer and non-surgical cosmetic procedure performed by non-physician personnel, nurses, estheticians, medical assistants, and most recently untrained individuals in their homes"'' -- and then the whole rest of the article appears to be about microdermabrasion. I suggest splitting the article into two. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The article says ''"Dermabrasion <b>should not be confused with</b> microdermabrasion which is a newer and non-surgical cosmetic procedure performed by non-physician personnel, nurses, estheticians, medical assistants, and most recently untrained individuals in their homes"'' -- and then the whole rest of the article appears to be about microdermabrasion. I suggest splitting the article into two. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
==A little OMG moment==
I was watching a viral video featuring a kid who suffers from [[Schwartz-Jampel syndrome]]. I was astonished at the red link. Maybe this happens a lot in this field, but still, that surprised me. Just sayin'. :) --[[User:Elitre|Elitre]] ([[User talk:Elitre|talk]]) 18:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
Per the ICD 10 these two terms are the same. I merged the two topics a while ago. Which should we use as the name of the article? Discussion here [1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just spotted your comment by chance. I suggest everyone with eczema has a type of dermatitis but perhaps not everyone with dermatitis has eczema. For example, sunburn or scabies may be considered types of dermatitis but not eczema. Clinically, I would use the term dermatitis more broadly. Hope that helps. Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this, could I suggest that the article lede needs a little more work clarifying the two terms - preferably at the same time dealing with the fact that it seemingly contains links to atopic dermatitis and atopic eczema, while the former is in fact a redirect to the latter. (I should probably declare a COI regarding the article, having just come back from a visit to my GP and chemist with (amongst other things) a 500ml bottle of Oilatum cream- I'm thinking of changing my user name to AndyTheItchyButWellGreased, or possibly AndyTheEmollient) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made this – {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Quackstar}} – for two editors in particular who I think have consistently and laboriously gone way out of their way to fix countless perceived errors in medical articles over the past few months. I also made it because it saddened me that there was nothing like this on WP:MED before now.
The new barnstar: a sense of humor is required when pushing this button ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒
Your exceptional duck-hunting efforts on Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed; for all your hard work in defending the Wiki from the legions of badly edited quackery, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.
Anyone heard of this phenomenon. I can just say that the article would never pass AfC today, and it could use some looking at, whether anything usable be merged to spina bifida? Sources are rather poor. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The (unreferenced) article appears to suggest that such a dimple is not necessarily representative of pathology. From a pediatric textbook on google books, sacral dimple is a common finding, and the majority are not a sign of spina bifida.[2] Not sure if this article is getting merged, but we will need a few refs nomatter. Lesion (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Would do especially well with some help about clinical significance. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For clinical significance, how about a brief summary of the signs and symptoms of lesions of each nerve? E.g. Hypoglossal, ipsilateral deviation of tongue, fasciculation and muscular atrophy. Lesion (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a very questionable decision. We should not get rid of anything that encourages people to become editors. Not to mention that the feedback is very insightful into what the readers are feeling about the article. I often enable feedback after reworking an article. It should also form a mandatory part of the GA/FA promotion too imo. Lesion (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am using it for the translation project. We are looking for feedback from readers on whether or not they find they translations useful. Unfortunate to see it go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe theory AfDs for comment
Per discussion at the Help Desk (saved revision), three articles on what seems to be some fringe theory in mental health (with some sort of deconstructivist flair) have been nominated for deletion:
Given the low quality of the article, if Meaning-making is indeed a synonym for one of those two things, I'd guess a simple redirect would be sufficient rather than incorporating any of the material from the original article. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Deletion is not cleanup, but I think it might be the other way around: Post-traumatic growth is the process of understanding and creating meaning from a trauma, but then there's the everyday process of meaning-making (e.g., why holiday traditions or religious rites seem "meaningful"). But it might make more sense to consider a merge with Meaning (psychology) for the general case, and leave the specifically post-traumatic situation in a more specialized article. I don't know. There are a lot of possibilities here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I was saying is that I don't think the article that exists at Meaning-making actually contains any meaningful or useful information, and so if a merge is appropriate, then likely it would end up being more like a delete-and-redirect, whereas if it's independently notable, it will likely need to be cut down to a stub. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 21:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A question
What is the term for the air that remains in the upper respiratory tract, trachea, primary bronchi etc during an inhalation and never reaches the alveoli before the exhalation? Lesion (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just an additional: I've always taken "dead space" to be the volume, rather than the gas itself (which doesn't have to be air). In snorkelling, we need to consider the volume of the snorkel as additional dead space (which sets a practical upper limit on the diameter of the snorkel: the upper limit on its length depends on the strength of your lungs); breathing out through the nose or flushing the snorkel helps reduce carbon dioxide build-up in the event of exertion. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes I think you are correct, and the article also supports this distinction. In effect, the snorkel becomes an extension of the respiratory tract, and the volume of air that is left inside it is useless in terms of gas exchange, just as the volume of air in the trachea etc. Dead space (physiology)#In_breathing_apparatus. The context I was after related to exhalation of 2/3 of the vital capacity before taking a sample of the last 1/3 of the exhalation, thereby aiming to make the sample more representative of "alveolar air" rather than air that had remained in the dead space. The air that had remained in the dead space would presumably be largely unchanged in composition compared to the environmental air that was inhaled (albeit warmer and more moist), whereas the "alveolar air" would have altered composition which reflected gas exchange, not just of CO2 and O2 but also various trace gases from the blood. Lesion (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what article this is for @Lesion: but you may want to check out [article] about the effects of tracheotomy on deadspace. Patients in the unit are often trach'd to get them off vents as it decreases the deadspace which, in turn, decreases the peak airway pressures and improves the pulmonary toilet. Ian Furst (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you're all thinking about all things lung-related, can anyone answer a pure-curiosity question for me? I read a bit about the history of CPAP machines. Apparently, the treatment for severe obstructive sleep apnea was an emergency tracheotomy—really like an emergency: you show up at the emergency room not having really slept for months, and they did a tracheotomy as soon as they could get a surgeon and an anesthesiologist into the same room. Why couldn't you just intubate the patient, get a good night's sleep, and schedule the surgery on a semi-elective basis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing:I've never heard of sleep apnea being a reason for emergency tracheotomy (and I did many months of training with older head & neck surgeons, the kind that used to tell me that when they trained hypertension was a terminal diagnosis). In answer to the question, the difficulty in intubating people with sleep apnea is usually lax tissues and big tongues making visualizing of the vocal cords difficult (and more recently the realization that they have higher post-extubation mortality) rather than the length of the tube. Generally speaking if the time of intubation is expected to be <14 days they get a tube and if >21 days they get a trach but there's a lot of regional variation. Not sure if you've seen it before but take a look at how George Washington died (a trach was recommended and refused). I've seen it used for children born with craniofacial anomalies (e.g. Pierre Robin syndrome) for sleep apnea but it's a severe example. Not sure if that answer's to the question. Ian Furst (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unaware of emergency tracheotomy being used to treat OSA. Elective tracheotomy is occasionally used ([3] and [4]) but I have not seen a case. Axl ¤ [Talk]22:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove all the conclusive peer reviewed sources? There aren't any literature reviews on the topic yet, but if you bother to do your own I don't see how it wouldn't be conclusive. 114.94.27.250 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were no "conclusive peer reviewed sources". Please have a read of WP:MEDRS. Since there are not any review articles most of the article should be deleted, which is what I have done.
We are not promoting some fridge based on a couple of poorly done primary sources. The null hypothesis is the default (ie it doesn't work) until someone provides good evidence that it does. This is how science works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...all of which have literature review sections which passed peer review, and all of which are conclusive. But you left an earlier inconclusive article, PMID 22330639, in the article and cited it as authoritative, even though it is not a WP:MEDRS. Do you believe that is a neutral point of view, or the point of view of an ER doctor facing the conflicted interest of substantial training and equipment upgrades when new organ preservation technologies are approved? 114.94.27.250 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it represents a horrible conflict of interest. As an ER doc I am doing organ transplantation all the time. Now I will need a new and more expensive fridge because this evidence proves they are better. And yes Health Canada has started requiring us ER doc to buy organ transplantation equipment north of the border. Budgets and stuff.
Hum a fridge is hard to operate. You open the door and put stuff in it. Maybe they can get the same airline stewardess who teach us how to fasten our seatbelts on airplanes to use these fridges. Now back to reality. Try reading WP:MEDRS. These are not "literature reviews" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way this study has a poor control group.[5]Why compare -3 degree in magic fridge with 4 degrees in normal frige? Why not compare -3 in magic fridge with magnet on and -3 in magic fridge with magnet off. One could even blind it where the researchers DO NOT KNOW which magic fridge has the magnet on or off? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see [6] on the second column. If cardiologists can't figure it out pretty quick, then something is seriously wrong. You could be saving long-term admits on machines every time someone gets killed by a car or moose instead of burdening the undertakers with winch repair bills. Honestly, whether cryonics will pass any single payer system's standard cost-benefit analysis in the next few decades is really wide open, but it seems more likely that there will be a firm yes or no than remain nebulous for long. ABI sells upgrades for existing freezers, and while I have no idea what they charge, the patent won't last forever and volume still balances profit margins. Anyway, I still think the three citations should be returned to the article but am happy to explain in the article that primary studies by their very nature are inconclusive without a literature review confirming them, even if they are individually conclusive. 114.94.27.250 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soon as people start living on the moon we can determine if moon BMI is the same as earth BMI with respect to health outcomes. No evidence that they are the same currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to interact with the Canadian CME certifier at the CCFP and one more or less needs to be a drug company with full time staff to figure out the paper work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our national journal tried it with the Royal College as well (for contributors of online content v published peer reviewed stuff). It was a non-starter. Somehow, we learn nothing by writing online. Ian Furst (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just made me think - I write a 3 page scholarly review here and I learn nothing. I do a 700 word case report with mindless references and it counts. Now I'm kinda angry - thanks Lesion... it's all your fault! Ian Furst (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am here to be revolutionary not for CME credits :-) I did however get a bunch for the talks / teaching I did at last years Cochrane Colloquium. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, but others may not have as pure motives as this. I am thinking that we should make it a long term goal to get some form of CME for people who want it. I just emailed the professional body in my country to see what they say. P.S. sorry Ian ... but I agree we really should be allowed to log this time as CPD (or whatever). Methinks it might be more believable if the request was paired with publication of a Wiki article in a journal... there is more accountability and someone's name is on it instead of a user name, etc. Lesion (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was what I was referring to. I meant: if the wiki article was published you might have more of a chance of them accepting it as CPD... Lesion (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My CPD diary allows (UK) for self-certified entries of time spent researching and reading. Seeing that writing a Wikipedia article tends to expand my own knowledge base, this is always an option.
Yes we have two type of CME credits in Canada. One can get the first type from working on Wikipedia (you get to self declare these). To get the second type more or less requires staff to deal with the paper work. I am happy for the Wikipedians here to approach organizations on behalf of WPMEDF with proposals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They said you can put "Researching and writing wikipedia articles" as non-verifiable CPD, but you need to give the topics you worked on, the number of hours needs to be exact and not a rough estimate, and the dates when you did this work would also have to be in the CPD log.
We should work on producing some kind of generic certificate for persons who might want to claim certifiable CME / verifiable CPD etc for work done here. Sounds like this more trouble than it's worth as far as Canada goes, but what about other parts of the world? I'm going to look into how difficult it would be to become a certified CME/CPD provider. Lesion (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor has suggested making these stand alone articles. Tried to find a WHO definition for these terms and failed. Maybe someone else will have better luck to help resolve this. Lesion (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently re-working syndrome. I think these articles are useful, as something other than redirects, if only to provide short definitions, and explanations (although, I realize they are not always so simple to define), rather than constantly being branched out. I think a short, well-referenced stub or start class article is more helpful than something without structure, because it prevents people from feeling the need to constantly add in their own sentence, or the new syndrome they just heard of. Just my two cents. Canada Hky (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at (and replied to some of) the comments. When you get past the confusion with medical state, the main line of argument appears to be that the IP is unhappy that people believe that dyslexia an undesirable situation with medical implications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Medical condition and disease should remain merged. Yes we see people upset all the time that something is called a "disease" or "syndrome" or is called a medical condition. It is all rather strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preservation and harvest of stem cells
Does anyone have any expertise in this area. We've had a user add primary research about harvesting stem cells from wisdom teeth. I have no idea if it's critically important, cutting edge research (and leaving a primary source is OK) or just an extension of research that's already been done on non-tooth sources (in which case I'd wait until secondary sources can be provided). Ian Furst (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OnAnesthesia there are about 5 different professional societies linked from the external links subsection. Is there a policy about the use of the external link section? Should I leave or remove them? Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ELMAYBE. It doesn't have to be DMOZ (which people frequently say isn't as good as it used to be); it could be any webpage that lists a bunch of links. Or you could just kill them off entirely, or pick specific information pages that are actually relevant (surely at least one of them will have a good public information page?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed many uncited assertions from this article. There is a merge proposal at the gum arabic talk page [7]. (I am not sure if this is the proper venue--if this is posted in the wrong place, feel free to move it elsewhere. Thank you.) Kablammo (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yes. There are a few of us here who are involved. Would love to have more people join our efforts for the next class. Am flying to San Fran in a week to give some talks to the students in person for the next round. If anyone one is in the area on March 3/4 you are invited to attend. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, medical experts. Another old Afc submission which has been tagged as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has done at least some rudimentary research on Tregs I don't think there is enough for an individual article, but maybe a short mention in the main article. Maybe 1-2 sentences and not a paragraph on its own. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fluctuance should definitely be mentioned on abscess (I have added it just now), however according to the first 2 randomly selected dictionaries I looked at, fluctuance is defined in terms of any fluid-filled lesion and is not reserved to pus in abscesses. Lesion (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - many things can be fluctuant (and the term should be used properly in those contexts) but I'm not sure we could generate an encyclopedic article on the topic. I can't say that I've run across a textbook chapter on the subject; as JFW has said it does seem like a dictionary entry. -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that an encyclopedic article is not possible, perhaps we will see one eventually. Sections: Definition, etymology, elicitation of fluctuance, a diagram, list of example lesions which give fluctuance =) Lesion (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Highly promotional and not novel. He's placing subperiosteal aginate so that bone is created (you can put nearly anything subperiosteal and it will create bone because bone creating potential is in the pluripotent periosteal cells, not the material you place) then moving it to a new location. It's a modification on an autogenous bone harvest/grafting where (?) the author is stimulating bone formation first before moving it. My recommendation would be for rapid deletion as non-primary sources and promotional but not sure what others think. Ian Furst (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Dermabrasion should not be confused with microdermabrasion which is a newer and non-surgical cosmetic procedure performed by non-physician personnel, nurses, estheticians, medical assistants, and most recently untrained individuals in their homes" -- and then the whole rest of the article appears to be about microdermabrasion. I suggest splitting the article into two. -- The Anome (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like Ha! Wish we didn't need to have a barnstar like that... 
