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.
Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.
Note that you have to individually sign up for Perlego and MIT, and some of them (approximately the top half of this list) aren't integrated into the search box at the top of the page. In those cases, you have to find, e.g., the box for Nature, click on "Access collection", and search their website directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got approved for Perlego. So far, I've found a (complete, legal) copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). I recognize a few titles (e.g., The Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures, Neal's Medical Pharmacology at a Glance, Hoffbrand's Essential Haematology...), but there are several thousand recent books about health and medicine (including vet med and dentistry) on this website, and the search is designed for a student who has been assigned a specific textbook, so assembling a highlights reel is a little challenging.
If anyone has a favorite book that they'd like to find, please post the name, and I'll see if it's in the list. I'm also willing to do searches for topics (e.g., 150 books on COVID, 22 books during the last five years on epilepsy, ), if you are working on an article and want to see whether it's worth the 60 seconds to apply (It is! And TWL still has almost two thousand unclaimed accounts available for Perlego, so you don't worry that you might taking something away from another editor if you sign up now). There are also books available in several other languages, in case anyone regularly edits at another Wikipedia. I think this is going to be a great resource for editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a complete list by any means. There are 200+ books on dentistry, 500 on health and healthcare, 2800+ on medical science, 275 on nursing and midwifery, 475 on veterinary medicine. No matter what you're writing about, there is likely to be a textbook or reference work here that is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a reader interested in metastatic carcinoma would be better served by the article carcinoma? I agree with your basic premise that developing an article on "metastatic carcinoma" is (while possible?) probably not the best context to present that information in. Ajpolino (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I'm honestly not sure which article would make a better target for a redirect. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely put "Metastatic carcinoma" as a subheader in the article Carcinoma. It does not stand on its own as a separate article. Indeed, there is already a Carcinoma#Invasion and metastasis subheader. The text could just go there — no need for new subheader. Jaredroach (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User is restoring a bunch of old animal models on Methionine. Content such as "A 2009 study on rats showed "methionine supplementation in the diet specifically increases mitochondrial ROS production and mitochondrial DNA oxidative damage in rat liver mitochondria offering a plausible mechanism for its hepatotoxicity" isn't good evidence. One of the listed sources [1] describes a calorie-restricted diet on fruit flies. I am not sure why this is relevant to the article. Per WP:MEDANIMAL I do not believe we should be citing small scale cherry-picked animal studies like this which are clearly weak evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 120 review articles with 'methionine' in their title on PubMed over the last 5 years. There would seem to be little need to cite any articles older than those (as there are plenty of good recent ones to choose from). If one were to flesh out the clinical use paragraph in Methionine, then one should probably not dwell on its use for aging, but also include a balance of review articles covering all of its uses (and potential uses). Over a dozen of these 120 review articles discuss aging, so it is appropriate to include aging as part of a balanced coverage - but please use these more recent review articles as references. Jaredroach (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm writing this message in relation to the old anesthesiology task force. I was curious as to the interest in recreating and maintaining this task force which had never been truly established. If anyone is interested, or would like to provide a comment, please reply to this topic. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neuropol, you're most welcome to unilaterally edit the task force pages, and to set them up however you see fit. I'll gently warn that the engine of each WikiProject/task force is the people, not the pages. Many WikiProjects/task forces were setup in our headier days, but over the years most haven't drawn a consistent group of editors to support them, and have lapsed into disuse. Thus, my advice: if you want an anesthesiology task force, focus on recruiting and cultivating a group of anesthesiology-interested editors, rather than organizing the task force pages. If the group is so large/active that you need the separate page to coordinate your efforts, then the task force is well on its way. Best of luck, Ajpolino (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the hip replacement article based on widespread inclusion of unsourced biomedical information. Given the importance of this procedure, editors may be interested in looking into this topic. Sunrise(talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the template for Factitial dermatitis (see below) has the subsections labelled as 1010. Does anyone know what classification was being used here? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the edit as part of an attempt to action this bot request (a follow-up to this WT:MED discussion). I'm not clever enough to figure how "1010" ended up as the text, but I believe the intention was to replace the ICD code numbers with something human readable. Ajpolino (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mental health in South Korea is in need of significant expansion, and any help is appreciated. Mental health is a pretty significant issue in the country, and on articles like this we have a chance to make an impact by spreading needed awareness. Fortunately, there seems to be a decent amount of literature in the English language on the topic; if you can help out please do. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Never mind, disregard. – 104.177.77.7; 03:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
104.177, total re-writes on hot-button subjects are rarely successful. I suggest trying to make changes stepwise. Add or change one sentence, paragraph, or section at a time, and let people have a while to "get used to" the new content before making the next change. It sounds like one of the improvements you should prioritize is differentiating Transvestic fetishism from Cross-dressing.
By the way, one thing that you absolutely cannot do is quote the full DSM criteria (which are copyrighted). We don't allow this in any article, even under fair use claims. So your change would have been reverted even if everyone agreed with it.
Hey all, seeking some knowledge from the experts here!
I've recently started RetractionBot back up, however there appears to be an edge-case I want to seek comment on in regards to Cochrane review papers.
Now, the Cochrane review appear to do odd stuff with replacing old papers and withdrawing the replacements, an example can be found here
In that example, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub3 has been marked as retracted due to being replaced by a new paper (doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub4). That paper has then been withdrawn in favour of the older version. For this reason, the citation is flagged up as retracted/replaced in both CrossRef and RetractionWatch, and the bot normally would try and add a {{retracted}} template to it.
I have supressed this for now, so any article published by Cochrane Review will be ignored, however I wanted to check...
Is tagging as {{retracted}} desirable in these instances or is ignoring it the best way to go?
Does anyone know if this is a common thing to happen?
Are there any views on how to handle these? Detecting this sort of thing is possible if I do a check on crossref for the newer paper, however these withdrawn papers are not reported as retracted as they are not reported on another DOI/PMID.
Cochrane retraction notices are generally dumb in that database. However, a true retraction should be flagged, if possible.
I think the following conditions would work, for Cochrane Reviews: if v+1 is retracted (e.g. pub4), but v is not (e.g. pub3), then ignore matches to v (e.g. pub3).
This Signpost story will be of interest to many here: RetractionBot is back alive. The userpage will have many relevant categories (all the unintentional citations categories especially need human review).
I would like to start this text "Highly malignant oligodendroglioma, grade IV" as an article. Where could I find more information, like glioblastoma?
On anaplastic oligodendroglioma you can already see where there is already. Wname1 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the distinction from glioblastoma? My understanding of the WHO criteria is that so far, most grade IV brain tumours are lumped into "glioblastoma". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the current 2021 WHO classification, there's no grade 4 oligodendroglioma. There's also no anaplastic oligodendroglioma anymore, as stated in the template I placed at the top of the article. The sources you've linked are outdated and not MEDRS-compliant.
This has been previously explained to at the articles talk page [2] and over at deWP [3]. MaligneRange (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The annual push is on to have Wikipedia declare that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. One new argument this year is that the WHO is only saying there's a pandemic as they have a monetary interest in "dragging it out". More eyes could be useful. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a neutral notification, and you nutpicked the arguments presented. The main argument is that experts disagree as to whether or not it is ongoing, so maybe the article should follow WP:NPOV and not take a side but mention the expert disagreement. It's going to be over eventually so you shouldn't be surprised it comes up again and again. Crossroads-talk- 17:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether the COVID-19 pandemic is over is complex and multifaceted, with varying perspectives from health experts, organizations, and the public.
Expert Opinions and Definitions
1. **World Health Organization (WHO)**:
- The WHO declared an end to the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023 but continues to describe COVID-19 as a pandemic due to its ongoing global presence and impact[3][11].
2. **Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)**:
- The CDC has shifted its focus from tracking cases to monitoring hospitalizations and deaths. While acknowledging that COVID-19 remains a public health threat, the CDC emphasizes the importance of vaccination and other preventive measures[12].
3. **Boston University Researchers**:
- Experts from Boston University highlight that COVID-19 still causes significant illness and death worldwide. They argue that the disease's widespread nature and the millions of cases reported weekly justify its classification as a pandemic[1].
4. **Scientific American**:
- Maria Van Kerkhove from the WHO notes that while the emergency phase is over, the pandemic status remains due to the virus's continued global circulation and impact[3].
Public Perception
1. **Gallup Poll**:
- A Gallup poll indicates that 59% of Americans believe the pandemic is over, although a similar proportion report that their lives have not returned to normal[4].
Current Data and Trends
1. **Global and National Data**:
- COVID-19 continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. For instance, the WHO reported over 774 million confirmed cases and more than seven million deaths globally as of March 2024[6].
- In the U.S., COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths have decreased significantly from their peaks, but the virus still poses a risk, especially to vulnerable populations[12].
2. **Variants and Transmission**:
- New variants, such as JN.1 and its descendants, continue to emerge and spread, indicating that the virus is still evolving and circulating widely[15].
Conclusion
While the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, the virus remains a significant global health threat. The WHO and other health experts continue to classify COVID-19 as a pandemic due to its widespread impact and ongoing transmission. Public perception varies, with many believing the pandemic is over, but data and expert opinions suggest that vigilance and preventive measures are still necessary to manage the disease's impact.
As much as I would love for AI to make our lives easier, I don't think LLMs are at the point yet where their "opinions" are of any weight or help. Digging up citations could theoretically be useful, but even here they don't always represent them accurately. For example, it cites this Boston University article as saying that experts there support classification as a pandemic; however, reading it makes clear that two out of the three lean towards or outright say it is not a pandemic, while the third (Murray) seems to lean that it is, but even she acknowledges that definitions of the term vary by saying e.g. this is where governments have flexibility in deciding whether we are in a pandemic.ThisTime article is cited to refer to what is on WHO's website, but what other experts in it say (including WHO's COVID lead Maria Van Kerkhove) is totally ignored. Crossroads-talk- 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's interesting to see what the state of development is for LLMs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page Prurigo simplex currently is a stub and there was an interesting conversation regarding the classification of it here. I'm not quite sure what to do with the page. The 2020 guidlines for Prurigo made no mention of Prurigo simplex. This article does a pretty good job of summerizing the controversy surrounding the term but I'll mention some of the highlights here:
"Subacute prurigo, characterized by small papulovesicles, is the most controversial category of prurigo (1, 4). Besides many eponyms, it is also known as prurigo simplex, prurigo simplex subacuta or urticaria papulosa chronica perstans (1, 2). Lately, the classification of prurigo into acute, subacute and chronic forms has been questioned (5). It is discussed whether subacute prurigo (prurigo simplex) belongs to the prurigo group of diseases, or if it is just one of many papular eruptions. In American literature, it is better known as “itchy red bump” disease. The term was coined by Ackerman (6), who described it as a “maddeningly pruritic, persistent condition that clinically resembles dermatitis herpetiformis with histologic features similar to papular urticaria”."
"Another controversial issue is whether prurigo simplex or “itchy red bump” disease is a clearly defined entity or a variant of chronic prurigo. It has been suggested that it is a transitional stage of prurigo that transforms from an acute to a chronic form"
It seems to me that Prurigo simplex should be a redirect to Prurigo, however the page Prurigo needs to be expanded as well (which I am happy to do).
I'm interesting in others thoughts on this topic. If anyone has anything to add or any opinions please let me know. For now I am going to focus on expanding Prurigo. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who had stubbed the simplex article, I concur with the suggestion of making Prurigo the main article on the subject and redirecting Prurigo simplex to it. The latter seems to be a minor and likely obsolete category with a PubMed search for prurigo simplex/prurigo simplex subacuta/urticaria papulosa chronica perstans/subacute prurigo finding only one review article: the 2021 Wallengren article mentioned above, which too calls the category and definition controversial. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness sake, I'll note that I had checked the 12th (2016) edition of Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology, which is cited in wikipedia's Prurigo simplex article, and that that reference work devotes less than half a page to prurigo simplex calling it the "preferred term for the chronic itchy idiopathic dermatosis" while noting that "the term prurigo continues to lack nosologic precision." I don't have instant access to the current (13th) edition of Andrew's to check if it says anything different. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rook's Dermatology says only that "There is continuing debate about conditions such as prurigo simplex acuta or prurigo simplex subacuta and their nature remains to be properly investigated."
Griffiths, Christopher E. M.; Barker, Jonathan; Bleiker, Tanya O.; Hussain, Walayat; Simpson, Rosalind C., eds. (2024-02-12). "Pruritus, Prurigo and Lichen Simplex: Psychological, Sensory and Neurological Disorders and the Skin". Rook's Textbook of Dermatology (10 ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119709268.rook081. ISBN978-1-119-70921-3.
Looking through Rook's led me this EADV consensus statement on chronic prurigo from 2018, which could be useful in further developing the Prurigo article and which says,『There was a discussion among experts regarding the spectrum of the so-called prurigo simplex – acute and subacute. It was noted that there is no clear definition of these two terms.』Consistent with other sources we have seen so far. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding this. I'm going to wait till I expand the Prurigo article to include classifications before making the redirect. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an issue with the classification of Lichen myxedematosus/Papular mucinosis. The terms papular mucinosis, lichen myxedematosus, and scleromyxedema have all kind of been jumbled and I'm not sure how to classify them. Here's what I've found:
ICD-11 lumps the terms Lichen myxoedematosus, Papular mucinosis, and Scleromyxoedema all under the term Lichen myxoedematosus. [4]
MeshID lumps the terms Lichen myxoedematosus, Papular mucinosis, and Scleromyxoedema under the term Scleromyxedema.[5]
Orphanet lists Lichen myxedematosus as a group of disorders,[6] with the terms Atypical lichen myxedematosus,[7], Localized lichen myxedematosus (Orphanet uses Papular mucinosis as a synonym for Localized lichen myxedematosus),[8] and Scleromyxedema.[9]
Disease database lumps them all together as well.
However it seems that they are different disorders with different sources using different names. For example UpToDate uses Papular mucinosis for a synonym of Lichen myxedematosus.[10] This article[11] goes over the classifications and seems to imply that Papular mucinosis is a synonym fot Localized lichen myxedematosus, and that Scleromyxedema is a seperate disorder.
From what I understand it seems like generalized lichen myxedematosus is a synonym for scleromyxedema, Papular mucinosis is a synonym for Localized lichen myxedematosus and lichen myxedematosus is the the group of disorders.
Before I change any redirects I'd like to hear others input on the topic as it's quite confusing to me. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the AFIB Technology article? It looks distinctly promotional to me, though I have no subject-matter knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a bit overly detailed to me. If you're interested, I suggest re-writing the "one study found" paragraphs to be more in line with WP:MEDSAY.
Have the infoboxes for medical conditions been changed or is my computer just not working right? Is this a site wide thing or just that specefic template? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to deal with the overwhelming amount of pages with unsourced statements.[edit]
I think the majority of the active editors here know that WikiProject Medicine has an issue with unsourced statements in articles. I'm not blaming anyone; a lot of the citation issues come from editors not familiar with Wikipedia. Regardless of how this issue started, I think we need to have a conversation about how to fix it.
I've noticed that there are typically two different types of pages that have unspurced statements: pages that are almost completely unsourced (for example, 1q21.1 duplication syndrome), and pages that have one or two unsourced statements but are otherwise well cited (for example, 3-M syndrome).
For the first type of page, I believe it's best to do a quick literary search to see if you can find where the information came from; however, I've found that this is usually quite low-yeild, especially when the whole page is unsourced. I believe most of these pages need to be rewritten. Obviously, this is a time-consuming task, but something needs to be done about the issue.
For the second type of page, usually I can find where they got the statment by searching keywords from the unsourced statement in Google. When I can't find the original source, I think it's fair to delete the unsourced passage, assuming it is not somehow vital information (however, if it were vital information, there should be a source somewhere with that information).
I'm looking for other ideas, suggestions, advice, and knowledge on this topic. I'm still a fairly new editor, and I haven't worked much on correcting this problem, so if anyone with more knowledge could share their opinions, that would be great. I just want to emphasize that this is not me trying to bash any editors; I just think it's time we have a conversation about this very prevelant issue. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking about the articles tagged as having no refs, such as these?