Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Refactored

The page was getting unmanageably large, so I've created Archive 4 and refactored this one. Hope that's OK with all of you. I've still left some pretty old discussions here, but curiously Dr. Ruben replied to an older message just some minutes ago that got swept up into the archive before I realized what was happening. The diff is here.

Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 20:46:08, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

As above, I've created Archive 5 and refactored this page. I will move the most recent discussions over. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 13:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Medical Genetics WikiProject

I started this project here. Please leave comments, help to create correct guidelines. Thanks. NCurse _work 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Diabetes

Having an interesting discussion on Talk:Diabetes mellitus whether there is an endogenous form of the yeast glucose tolerance factor, a chromium-containing substance which may ameliorate diabetes. At the moment I'm having a bit of a déjà vu. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Input requested at Drug-eluting stent

I hope you're not tired of me announcing my articles here, but I just wrote drug-eluting stent and I could definitely use some help. (I can't believe there wasn't already an article on it!) It's definitely one of the biggest articles I've tried writing from scratch (that and History of Earth), and I'm struggling a bit. I'd appreciate if any of you who have the time or desire could take a look. In addition to general comments and fixes, there are a few specific requests I have. First, please correct any inaccuracies or misleading statements. Second, how detailed should I make the "Uses" section? Should I describe the specific lesions that are stented? Specific trials? Third, help with the "tone" of the article, and properly balancing benefits and controversy would be appreciated. Fourth, what else can I do to expand or improve it? I can add technical details, but I'm not sure how beneficial they are in an encyclopedia article. I'd like to nominate it for peer review at some point, but it should probably be longer and I really would appreciate some medical feedback first. It would make a good topic for featured article, no? We've had plenty of featured articles on diseases and anatomic structures; how about an intervention/device for a change? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first view:

• categorize please
• I fixed references to be small
• what about external links?
• Yes, you should improve Uses (maybe the most important section in the article). "Should I describe the specific lesions that are stented? Specific trials?" I think, yes. As the main part of the topic.
• In my opinion, the leading should be a summary of the article, and a section called Structure or somewhat should be written about the stent itself.

Anyway great article, it was interesting to read. Congrat! After these, it can go to peer review. :) NCurse _work 10:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS:"I hope you're not tired of me announcing my articles here" - NEVER! :) NCurse _work 10:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind I move this discussion to the article's talk page. NCurse _work 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer if this stays here, since the purpose of my message was to solicit feedback; I agree though that specific discussion of the article will be best suited on the talk page. Thanks for any advice you guys have. — Knowledge Seeker দ 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Andropause??

Anyone else think this article is borderline quackery? In my endocrinology book, they have one small paragraph on andropause in the menopause section, and it says There is a question as to whether there is an equivalent ‘andropause' in men. Jpbrody 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of the article appears to be copied from various websites. I'll fix what I can. -AED 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of it is driven by the pharmaceutical industry, as well. Take a look at Androgel advertisements when you get the chance! InvictaHOG 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am curious. Is there anything to a 'male menopause', or is it all bogus?jawesq 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept is not entirely bogus, but is often exaggerated to the point of quackery. The principal differences between menopause and andropause are that menopause is a complete cessation of ovarian function, both hormonal and reproductive. By the end of menopause many of the reproductive hormones return to prepubertal levels and spontaneous fertility is close to zero. It occurs over a few years, a short enough time that abrupt hormone withdrawal symptoms are common. Andropause, on the other hand, is a relative decrease to lower hormonal levels which occurs over decades. The hormone levels may decrease by 30-70% between the ages of 45 and 75 years, but sperm production falls by less, and both testosterone and sperm production are maintained well above prepubertal levels. Abrupt hormone withdrawal symptoms are uncommon and fertility is often maintained even into one's 80s. The concept of andropause appeals to those who think aging is a treatable disease. We have certainly learned that one cannot simply keep a woman on estrogen to age 90 without incurring some shift of risks. We are going to find out the same thing about giving testosterone to aging men. And, yes, the concept is partly a product of pharmaceutical marketing. For the last several years the annual scientific meetings of the Endocrine Society have included structured debates about the concept and the pros and cons of testosterone treatment of aging. alteripse 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. With all the television advertising, I have sometimes wondered if diseases or disorders ("social anxiety disorder" comes to mind) are invented to sell pharmaceuticals. Alas it would not surprise me if aging is someday labeled a disorder. jawesq 05:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Molly, you mean disease mongering. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

yep. I had no idea there was an article on it. That's great!jawesq 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The andropause (as it is sometimes called) is a more gradual process than the menopause. Various preparations of testosterone are available in the UK for male hypogonadism, which may help with ED and osteoporosis in men. Snowman 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pharmacology Templates

Several users are currently discussing formatting issues at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-09 Pharmacology Templates. Further feedback from interested parties would be welcome. --Arcadian 07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A consensus emerged and no new postings in the last week, so I've implemented across the templates. Some had just a couple of classes per template but with many drugs listed (seemed best highlighting the class-names in their own columns), whilst other templates had multiple classes each with a few drugs (more free flowing style with several classes per line seemed best).

Finally all the drug navigation templates are under a general 'Category:Science navigational boxes', I think these should be moved to a subcategory of 'Drugs navigation boxes'. I know that not all are drugs (eg BirthControl template) but neither are all used for clinical therapy (eg many of psychoactive agents), so Pharmacology, Medicines & Therapeutics all would be problematic - and hey, this is the WikiProject Drugs so its navigation templates should be 'Drug navigation boxes' :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RfQ guideline: Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles): I've proposed this as a Manual of Style guideline to writing medical articles, please comment on that talk page!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Medicinal properties of dandelion

Opinions on how to handle Medicinal properties of dandelion? AfD? Merge? AED 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's tough, because the common dandelion page has not yet been created. I think that ideally a little of the information should be verified and kept there, though most could just be deleted. Eventually the page can be redirected or simply deleted. I don't think we need a page on this. InvictaHOG 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the "medicinal properties of dandelion" can be attributed only to taraxacum officinale (as the article claims) and not the other species, the page could be renamed Taraxacum officinale, as suggested on the talk page, once the information has been verified, and the page redirected there. This would be more likely to meet with consensus initially. --apers0n 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stress Strain Index

While working in the wikification project, I came across this article that probably needs some expert attention. I have no clue what the equation means, so if someone could look at that article, I'd really appreciate it. It needs work to be cleaned up and such. Thanks, Metros232 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. I think the basics are now there, but it is probably close to incomprehensible if you don't have an engineering degree. Nephron  T|C 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, wow, that's a big difference between where it started and where it ended up. Of course I don't fully understand it still, but I understand it much better than I did in its previous state. Thanks. Metros232 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

regulation of psychotherapy

I'm trying to find out when the state of New Jersey started regulating psychotherapy. Thanks in advance for any help. --JWSchmidt 04:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible AfD

Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas is a physician and author of a few medical review books. I'm thinking about nominating the article for deletion on the grounds that he doesn't appear to meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) or Wikipedia:Notability (books), but I though it might be wise to get some feedback here first. Does being an author guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia? -AED 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Very much a vanity page. Agree with your doctor/book failures. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for Authors - "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The few books appear to be exam-cram guides of limited shelf-life.Colin°^Talk 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! InvictaHOG 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It's up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas. -AED 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page if interested in a strange exchange with the subject of this article. -AED 03:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous people with... (Part II)

I am about to make a change to the section in Eyebrow entitled People famous for their eyebrows per the previous discussion here. The two primary suggestions were to move the section to a list page or to enforce the requirement for references per WP:V and WP:RS. Anyone else have a preference before I do this? Anyone willing to back me up if the change is reverted? -AED 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus, this could become part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)? However, I'm still opposed to moving this away from articles too much. It's of course more easy to put it in a separate article not having to watch it, not having to clean it up,... But I think this is part of the charm of Wikipedia as opposed to standard encyclopedia's, that it has non-standard but nonetheless interesting information. Splitting it off feels to me as a form of elitism. It should be referenced, though. Can't wait to find out which people are famous for their eyebrows!--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I will support you moving it off. I don't think that it's elitism to use summary style - moving a long list in an article of prose to a "list" designed for the purpose just makes sense. Linking to the list in See also ensures that the list is an extension of the article. It's a perfect use of both summary style and listing. The standard for all Wikipedia is WP:V and these lists are no different. InvictaHOG 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've brought up this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) to develop some consensus on what to do. -AED 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some comments there. Wrt to your Eyebrow, if you enforce WP:V and WP:RS, would there be many entries left? If not, and there is little hope to improve the situation, then a separate list article may end up deleted.

You may be interested to know that List of people with epilepsy is currently a Featured list candidate. At present, it looks likely to fail due to being not long enough (39 names). Your comments (either way) would be appreciated. The criteria are here. Colin°^Talk 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical professionalism

• New editor added this to Medicine article which unless one understands that 'medical professionalism' is some form of rear-guard action by doctors, seems to make little sense.
• In turn medical professionalism is a very odd piece - its seems an essay on attempts "to protest the restrictions on service delivery imposed by health maintenance organizations" - certainly not how I would use term 'medical professionalism'.
  • Worse still the article's various sections seem to be mere introductions to the various multiple full raw URL links to http://www.imapny.org/libdocs/libdocs_list.htm?attrib_list=???? (which are lists of papers rather than any single paper, opinion, collated analysis etc).
  • medical professionalism is also a clear copyvio of About IMAPNY.org
• So is this all a genuine use of expression in US, an essay needing wikifying (i.e. addition of content rather than external links), spaming for Institute on Medicine As A Profession or what ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider replacing the copyvio tag with the speedy copyvio tag. Medical professionalism seems to be some subset of Bioethics. -AED 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would have thought it should refer to ethics and professionalism. Not sure what you mean by "speedy copyvio tag" - for me to promptly apply the Template:copyvio tag as I have already now done, or that there is a more urgent tag than copyvio itself ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out this link to speedy delete. I think you have to put the text back to use that header, though. -AED 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However it is only the article's intro for which I was quickly able to find as being lifted, the text in the various sections are seem similar formal linguistic style and markup tags suggests similar copy & paste from site, but I can not immediately locate on that website. As I am unsure whether this is a genuine movement in US &/or accepted use of term, i thought I might wait a few hours to see what other (American) editors might guide me on all of this.... but re-reading the article, each section is POV and one one I suspect majority would not wholeheartedly agree with - ok then... remove copyvio and use db-copyvio tag instead. David Ruben ^Talk 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty interesting. I'm not sure that I've heard this collection of recommendations, etc. referred to as "medical professionalism," but I am sure that the movement has some name. The concepts are all quite familiar, I'm sure. Obviously it's a copyvio, but I believe it probably has some merit as a movement within medicine (even if the name given is new or a neologism). It should certainly be covered in some article (even if not this one). InvictaHOG 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see article now been deleted by an admin as a speedy copyvio, but I agree InvictaHOG some of points raised were worthy of comment and commentry. David Ruben ^Talk 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

... but title "hijacked" what I would consider normal use of the term, so conflict of professional behaviour under healthcare organisation restrictions would be better served by a reworded title. As I posted to User:Alwood, who is the Director of Communications for the organisation whose self-penned material was copied directly across to wikipedia and repeatedly linked to (I've pointed out issues of writing about ones own organisation and suggested they discuss here the topic, for other editors to then decide if notable or not, and independantly write-up):

• Many of the issues raised are of course interesting and important. However your definition of the term "medical professionalism", with implications as a backlash against forced management of healthcare organisations, is certainly not the rather narrower meaning I or any UK doctor I know would recognise. In other words it starts with the general accepted understanding of the term and then takes it forward as a campaigning political movement. This is likely to be seen as biased Point of View and wikipedia demands WP:Neutral point of view. Is there some other article title that may be used, e.g. Medical professionalism and healthcare systems or Medical professionalism and healthcare provision or Medical professionalism under healthcare systems or some such qualifier that indicates that the subject is both about the bioethics of medical practice and with the specific regard to how it interacts with external pressures ?
• Again I agree the conflict of interests (doctor's self interests, doctor's concerns for their individual patients, healthcare systems to their target population, administrators concerns for meeting measureable but clinically dubious targets, heathcare systems to their paymasters etc etc) is both interesting and important - but the contentious issues this raises will need very careful writing if not to fall foul of WP:NPOV and also will need to WP:Cite to WP:Verify the opinions as those from WP:Reliable sources (otherwise seen as personal opinion and this would breach WP:No original research).

David Ruben ^Talk 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of an actual name, but how does the dark, seedy underbelly of modern medicine sound? That's bound to be NPOV! I guess if we create a page for Beneficence which is not the mascot of some university we might be able to discuss some of the issues there and redirect several less NPOV page names to the concept? InvictaHOG 04:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Medical professionalism may deserve an entry of sorts. It is one of the 6 core competancies that the ACGME uses to evalute and accredit residency programs as part of its Outcomes Project. I suspect that is not what the above mentioned entry is referring to, however. Bdolcourt 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy for obesity

I think the advocacy for obesity articles (how I'd describe 'em) need some attention. There are bunch and they are growing. The latest is Health at Every Size, which I think borders on a vanispamcruftisement. It grew indirectly from the Fat acceptance movement. Might be good to nip this in the bud before it gets bigger... Nephron  T|C 03:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting clean-up, merge/redirect to FAM, or AfD? -AED 04:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up and NPOV... beyond that I'm not quite sure. I think merging would be a good thing... just not sure how. Fat acceptance movement seems to be a political thing. Health at Every Size seems to be a criticism of the dominant opinion in the medical profession... perhaps it should be merged into the obesity article. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Nephron  T|C 07:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the HAES article (well, stub, but more is coming), and I'd like to understand why people think it's a vanity article. I strongly disagree. It's a real topic--cf Linda Bacon's study of the effects of the HAES approach, the HAES journal, the Green Mountain at Fox Run program, etc. It's not just a "criticism of the dominant opinion", it's a set of beliefs that some people use to guide their eating and exercise habits -- I understand that the article needs to be expanded to explain why it's not just a criticism of the dominant beliefs. But I really fail to see why someone would think it's not a valid wikipedia article -- after all, the grapefruit diet deserves a page, why shouldn't HAES? It is no less valid than that one. I am also completely mystified as to what on the current stub of a page could be considered to be POV: there are about ten sentences so far, and they are all simply factual...? If the issue is that there is no criticism yet on the page ... it's a stub, I haven't gotten to it yet. If someone wants to add a "Criticisms of HAES" section, that would be welcomed! My impetus for starting this page was, quite simply, that when people ask me to explain what HAES is I would like to be able to point them to a good, NPOV, wikipedia article about the topic. Chartreuse green 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The research study cited looks like a strawman argument; it isn't that I disagree with the point that chronic dieting is bad-- it is that having a steady weight that is substantially higher than normal is unhealthy. As such, Health at Every Size is a misleading phrase. Conceptually, it really amounts to a harm reduction program-- something that is a difficult sell in the USA (if one considers the rejection of effective public health measures such as safe injection sites and sexual education that promotes condom use). The article, as written, conveniently side steps the evidence that suggests being overweight, and in particular being morbidly obese, leads to substantial morbidity and mortality. As such, I think it has a POV. Nephron  T|C 09:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A political party has a POV, but it's possible to write a NPOV article about it, like when it was established, who are prominent figures in the party, what common values do members of the party have, etc. etc. I think the same should go for a HAES article. So the question shouldn't be whether the HAES paradigm is based on sound or shaky evidence, but whether (a) HAES is enough of a concept to have an entry in Wikipedia, and (b) whether the article is taking that descriptive NPOV angle rather than a POV. I think (a) is definitely the case, because the term is used in literature from a variety of sources. As for (b), so far it is describing beliefs and listing some references to people/sites/literature and thus I think it is NPOV at the moment. I'd agree with being careful that it continues to be NPOV and doesn't go anywhere near advocacy - PurpleRavel, 22 August 2006

After doing a bit of searching on the web, I agree that it ought to have its own article. While it has improved, I think it still needs a bit of work. I think there are some elements of advocacy in the article-- and I'm not quite sure it presents a balanced picture. Nephron  T|C 05:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Merjing NeuroScience into Neurology

I got into this subject from wondering what the difference between Neurology and Neuroscience was, and I concluded that there isn't a very big one, nor is it a distinction that pervades European language. It's not in Czech, German, or Polish. One is a research discipline. The other tends to refer to pathology. I also ran into minor objections, one of them being that there are too many categories that some articles would fit in. No big deal in my book, especially since I'm trying to eliminate a category. Some elaborate articles should get into many categories. This is my thinking, if I continue:

Pathology: Any condition for which there is a laboratory test or medical imaging to confirm or deny a diagnosis. In rural areas, I'm left to believe that G.P.s often interpret lab results. This category is the main difference between Neuroscience and Neurology. IOW, if an article is about both NeuroScience and Disease, then it properly belongs only in Neurology.

Symptoms: I would abandon categorizing articles under Symptoms for being literally equal to Pathology, but then I would be left with no distinction for an article that was under neuroscience, but described a disease that should be under Neurology as it was orijinally distinguished from NeuroScience.

Buttressing my rationale, in a rough manner of side issues, is a relatively unused category:medicine, and I really think the stubs category is far too big. Aren't all wiki articles stubs? An edit tab is at the top of just about every page on wikipedia. Isn't that enough to prompt input from someone who knows what they're talking about? So, if an article seems to be complete or not likely to expand, you'll excuse me for deleting the stub templates.

Someone objected to a fifth category:treatment, but that again offers a reason to class an article under neurology. If I heed the objection, it will be because treatment falls into Neurology. If I ignore it, it will be because articles exclusively about treatment will likely remain a small category.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.79 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 August 2006

As previously stated (can't remember which talk page it was), neurosciences is the underlying sciences and study including normal functioning (e.g. Sodium-potassium channels, neuroembryology, characteristics of neuronal depolarisation etc). Whilst "neurology" deals with pathology true, this misses the point that "Neurology" is a medical discipline and thus is the practice of medicine to neurological disorders. Medical articles do not need to be listed under every possible classification scheme as you suggest - Category:neuroscience can deal with underlying mechanisms of function (but we don't also automatically add to such articles Category:Biochemistry orCategory:Electricity), Category:Neurology should apply to the development of the medical speciality and diseases it covers. Category:treatment would be pointless and is superfluous as could be applied to all disease articles - instead top level existing categories are Category:Medicine with subcategory Category:Medical treatments, and Category:Pharmacology, which together lead to Category:Pharmacologic agents which in turn has subcategories, eg Category:Anticonvulsants. David Ruben ^Talk 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Medical tourism

It has been suggested in Talk:Medical tourism that Medical value travel, Medical tourism in Thailand, and Medical Tourism India merge to Medical tourism. Anyone care to comment before this is done? -AED 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions about radiology images and patient confidentiality

I know this may end up being an institution/America specific question, but I was wondering what people knew/thought about obtaining permission, etc. before releasing radiologic studies (with all identifying information removed!) into the public domain. I could contribute a ton of x-rays, but haven't because I just don't know the law! InvictaHOG 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What law could be violated by doing that? JFW | T@lk 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about confidentiality, but what about copyright? Are you the radiographer? Does the hospital retain any rights? Colin°^Talk 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, a law that I don't know about that could end my professional career? The whole copyright thing is a question I had, too. Since the patients technically own their x-rays in America, am I violating their implicit copyright by publishing the image? I've asked over at the Commons. There are a lot of x-rays, etc. on Wikipedia and I think that it must be okay. I just want to be extra careful, you know? InvictaHOG 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In most US jurisdictions, the physician/hospital owns the medical records/radiographs but the patients are entitled to copies of them (for a fee) if they so request. I am not 100% certain but I think radiographs can be used for educational purposes provided 1) the identifying information has been removed and 2) the patient has not specified they not be used. -AED 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a sort of educational fair use, or is Wikipedia an allowable setting? InvictaHOG 20:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_March_25, Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I get the feeling that "educational use only" images are not welcome. I find AED's US "opt out" clause rather discomforting. In the UK, there are "opt in" forms that give rights for the doctors to use images/video for eductational purposes only (such as slides at a presentation) - though I've only occasionally seen one. (I'm sure the UK wikidocs could say more on this). Personally, I would be upset if the x-ray of my broken toe appeared on the Internet for all to download, even if it was anonymous. If my permission had been sought first, then I'd feel happier. I know its not rational, but it just seems polite. Colin°^Talk 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side, I think it would be advisable to get a patients consent before uploading them, regardless wether or not it is legal to do it without consent. --WS 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of UK situation is that no information or image of a patient may be used without their express consent for such a use. Any such image used in a UK publication would need a prior signed consent form granting such a use and generally also that the patient's identity is fully removed from the photo (e.g. photo of a cold sore on a lip does not show rest of patient's face). This is no different really from use of “model release forms” for images used in newspapers/magazines/TV. However aside from any civil claims for wrongdoing, any UK doctor posting an image of their patient without consent would be breaching "Good clinical practice" guidelines of the [[General Medical Council" and could expect to face professional disciplinary proceedings (i.e. double jeopardy).

As for copyright - all UK National Health Service notes and images are ultimately the property of The Crown (i.e. The Queen) via Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Health and held on their behalf by a hospital or doctor. As such, a patient can not demand to take their notes from an NHS provider in order to keep or destroy, but has under the Data protection act (and other instruments of regulation) the right to view the notes and have any objection about any inaccuracies duly noted (doctors are not obliged to make any factual changes requested, but would then have to record the patients requests, reasons for it and why they disagree with the changes).

So for any UK doctor thinking about posting images to wikipedia, the same rules about consent and confidentiality will apply as to collecting personalised data (even if later anonymised) and its publication in traditional media. David Ruben ^Talk 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure of the specifics of the law myself, but the medical photography department at my hospital deals with this issue routinely for X-rays or photos for publication (where patients and the hospital both have to give up rights to a photograph that is to be published). I spoke to the people at my hospital, and they have a disclaimer form for the patient and physician to sign that says that the image being taken (or burnt from PACS onto CD, etc.) is no longer property of the patient or hospital, and can be used "for general use at the discretion of _________" where the physician fills in their name. It sounds like a public domain type licensing form, and I think that's probably the best way to go for X-rays. It's a little time consuming but I just get my patients to sign a similar form whenever I see an interesting finding on endoscopy (sort of like X-ray, I guess) -- Samir धर्म 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really no expert here, but seems to me this topic is bound to pop up some day again and nobody will remember this discussion: therefore, how about any of you added some of these thoughts to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Expert help for V. Craig Jordan bio

I created a bio for V. Craig Jordan, pharmacologist who published lots on tamoxifen. But I have no medical training and would appreciate it if someone with more of a clue could take a brief look and see if I misrepresented anything or left out something blindingly obvious. Thanks. --SiobhanHansa 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the talk page. I think this could aid in providing historical background on tamoxifen and SERM as well. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Myopia

I think I've already crossed the 3RR line, so I could use a bit of assistance in Myopia. Someone with socks keeps adding "Behavioral myopia" (a concept that gets only 4 Google hits) to a part of the article that makes a true description false. Thanks! -AED 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Political myopia? Clinical myopia? It's a great metonym! JFW | T@lk 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First clinical syndrome

This article first clinical syndrome should be merged with medical student syndrome. While the article describes things that may be unique to India, the entities themselves are essentially identical. 70.19.131.66 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulcerative colitis RfC

Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology -- Samir धर्म 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC):

Ulcerative colitis, debate at Talk:Ulcerative colitis#RfC. The Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis was proposed in one paper by Dr. Jay Pravda. It has never been cited by another publication, but ulcerative colitis contains four references to it, and 12 lines of text based on it. Does this violate WP:SOAP? Crossposted at WP:CLINMED -- 07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It holds a ground between WP:NOR, WP:N and WP:SOAP. I would strongly recommend you have it sent for AFD. Let us know when you do. Specific theories on pathogenesis are almost never notable, unless they are earth-shattering (such as all cancers being due to watching television). JFW | T@lk 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant send Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis for AFD. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done that, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis. Please vote. JFW | T@lk 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Full-body scan

Anyone want to have a peek at this new article? I've disputed the use of secondary sources and web sites on the talk page -- Samir धर्म 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I reacted on the article's talk page. NCurse _work 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia need both this article and Computed tomography? --apers0n 16:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're really different topics. Have a look at the first two paragraphs of the full-body scan article. I didn't know it neither. :) NCurse _work 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Clinical Cases

Clinical Cases (talk · contribs) has been inserting links to the site that bears his username, which contains case reports and howto's. We now disagree on whether a link of his on polycythemia is appropriate. JFW | T@lk 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the polycythemia case entry, and while it's a good clinical case, material contained in the case interpretation should be encyclopedized into the article as opposed to placing an EL -- Samir धर्म 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But as long as it is not all in there, it is a valuable link. --WS 06:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Enzyme nominated for FA

If anyone might be interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enzyme. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review wanted

I've spent most of today improving coeliac disease, relying on a number of key papers and generally finding material to close the gaps. This is a common condition that is still underdiagnosed in most countries, but it is a fertile area of research, and there has been a major paradigm shift over the last ten years or so. I've refactored some poorly sourced, unencyclopedic or redundant stuff, and standardised the citation system.

On the whole, I think it looks pretty good. I've had some input from Samir and Webaware. But before I submit this for actual project-wide peer review I was wondering if you'd all could be so kind as to take a look, improve that is necessary, or mentioned major misrepresentations on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion:

1. "Some patients are diagnosed with symptoms related to the decreased absorption of nutrients or with symptoms which, although statistically linked, have no clear relationship with the malfunctioning bowel." - reference?
2. Genetics section has major problems (copy-edit, reference, linking)
3. I couldn't find more images... I don't know where we should search for one.

NCurse _work 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My response:

1. No reference needed. This introduces the outline I've used to seperate the symptoms into luminal, nutrient/micronutrient malabsorption and miscelaneous. If you have a better way of classifying the symptoms please don't hesitate to change it around.
2. Please copyedit the genetics section. What links do you want? OMIM is already linked from the diseases infobox.
   1. It has been fixed. NCurse _work 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. What images should we use anyway? JFW | T@lk 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
   1. I really don't know, there is only one image in commons. It's not your fault, i was just wondering. I found images for melanoma article on a homepage for example. I'll try to search. NCurse _work 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fantastic to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I join. Great article, absolutely ready for peer review. NCurse _work 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work. I added a couple of small points and moved a paragraph about diagnosis to the proper section. alteripse 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pages needing attention from an expert in medicine

I've started Category:Pages needing attention from an expert in medicine. Interested users can have a look and maybe weigh in on several issues posted there. Maybe we could create a Task Force within this project to cover those articles?

Also, I've asked for a bot to automatically sort pages needing expert attention into categories.

To add an article to this category, replace you can replace {{Expert}} by {{Expert-Medicine}}.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Communicating prevalence

In reviewing the Coeliac disease article, I found that the prevalence was expressed as a percentage. I continued this when adding another sentence, even though the source data I used gave a 1:XX ratio. There is an excellent article by Ben Goldacre on the problems of communicating such numbers: Risky Business. In the discussion that followed the article, someone posted details of a related article from Science magazine. BTW: I think most wikidocs here would enjoy Ben's writing.

Anyway, which do people find best:

1. A large multicentre study in the US found a prevalence of 0.75% in not-at-risk groups, rising to 1.8% in symptomatic patients, 2.6% in second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease and 4.5% in first-degree relatives.
2. A large multicentre study in the US found a prevalence of 1:133 in not-at-risk groups, rising to 1:56 in symptomatic patients, 1:39 in second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease and 1:22 in first-degree relatives.
3. A large multicentre study in the US found a prevalence of 7.5 per thousand individuals in not-at-risk groups, rising to 18 per thousand in symptomatic patients, 26 per thousand in second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease and 45 per thousand in first-degree relatives.
4. A large multicentre study in the US found that symptomatic patients were 2.4 times more likely to have coeliac disease than not-at-risk groups. Second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease were at 3.5 greater risk and first-degree relatives had a 6-fold greater risk.
5. A large multicentre study in the US found that symptomatic patients were 240% more likely to have coeliac disease than not-at-risk groups. Second-degree relatives of a patient with coeliac disease were at 350% increased risk and first-degree relatives had a 600% greater risk.
6. Boffins say children of banana babies are six times more likely to get rare bowel disease. ;-)

I wouldn't be surprised if I'd made a mistake rewording all those variations. Any other variations or better wording? Thoughts? Colin°^Talk 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like #3-- but #2 is probably a bit easier to understand for the lay public. Though not prevalence per se, absolute numbers are often useful-- i.e. over one million patients worldwide are on some for of renal dialysis therapy.[1] That said, prevalence from countries other than the US is nice. I'll remember to keep an eye out for those banana babies. ;)

Another article for deletion

For whoever is interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals --WS 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity School of Medicine

Check out the Wikiversity School of Medicine!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the remit of Wikiversity School of Medicine, or to be blunter - what's the point ?

• Duplication - There is a real risk of huge duplication with wikipedia; think almost all of human anatomy, much of biochemistry, physiology, psychology, medicine & surgical and disease wikipages.
• Reliability - If it is to instruct (? for developing countries who can not obtain medical textbooks or developed countries medical students as a resource ?) on current accepted practice and understanding then it will need remain "accepted practice and understanding" (the "right" information is needed to pass exams and practice in a professional manner – i.e. as acceptable to ones peers, within Evidence based medicine and within the social and legal expectations placed upon doctors).
  • I fear its usefulness will be as limited as a primary source of information as for wikipedia itself. Hence wikipedia is useful as an initial introduction to a topic, but no one should rely solely upon it without seeking other sources (yet if wikiversity of Medicine is to be for developing countries who do not have access to other sources, how are they to confirm the information and so rely upon Wikiversity ?)
  • If campaigners over a topic wish to skew a topic with alternative opinions, will the same NPOV policy as wikipedia require equal coverage of ideas and practices? If so then this may be stupid, dangerous or both. Wikipedia has NPOV over stated opinions, yet in instructional material one needs SPOV (Scientific Point Of View) – i.e. wikipedia may report on a commonly held belief even if not supported by fact, instructional material has to be “correct”.
• Target audience. If I have misunderstood wikiversity and it is merely a discussion forum for students to raise questions to be answered by others then 2 issues arise: Firstly there are very few doctors even signed up at WP:CLINMED, so are there enough readers who are doctors or medical students to make this worthwhile? Secondly, who then is to moderate the information being given, before some medical student tries something silly on a patient ?
• Liability – (Closely tied to reliability) Currently wikipedia has appropriate disclaimers re the information contained, so presumably as School of Medicine aims to instruct so it needs to be “correct”.
  • As a silly example: one can’t have management of a heart attack as being either thrombolytics or paracetamol and expect a disclaimer to remove liability on wiki foundation from responsibility for having incorrectly taught a medical student
  • Real life example (if homeopaths were to add instruction on "hard" medical topics - i.e. treatment of heart attacks or cellulitis rather than IBS or chronic pain perception) - I was asked to see a child in their home who was "unwell", it turned out that the mother had a belief that the "mild" skin infection & irritation could be treated with homeopathy and had deferred seeking "conventional" advice for fear that "drugs" might be advised. The child had cellulitis and now was critically ill, entering septic shock and needed blue-light ambulance admission for high-dose intravenous antibiotics if life was to be saved. The mother seriously started to question my judgement that antibiotics were indicated stating that it was proven that homeopathy could treat infections, and was quite taken aback that I refused to interrupt my telephone call to ambulance control instead of discussing the merits of the various additional homeopathic preparations she was considering using. Yes homeopathy exists, yes some hold that it may help for some conditions and NPOV requires mention in an encyclopaedia - but in a textbook of Medicine discussing aetiology, signs, symptoms, treatment and prognosis of disease ?
• So are only academics or registered doctors to write the instructional material ? Clearly this is a wiki and anyone can contribute, but is there to be any vetting process (I suppose somewhat like the stable version assessment for Wikipedia 0.5).?

The above all seems very negative, I suppose I need the Wikiversity School of Medicine explaining to me, and how it differs from Wikipedia. PS Wikiversity:About and Wikiversity:Welcome, newcomers strike me as being naïve and fail to address above points/concerns. David Ruben ^Talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious where the seed content is coming from. I read the article on Emergency Medicine. Not only is it quite inaccurate, especially for US practice, but it is rather insulting in places to those who are residency trained in EM. I know that some inaccuracy is to be expected for the initial versions, but as this is the "University" you'd think that there might be more of a vetting process. Plus, there is already a reasonable "Emergency Medicine" topic on the regular Wikipedia. I haven't yet bothered to read much else besides "Cardiology," but it seem to have a lot to do with the heart and very little to do with the practice of Cardiology. Bdolcourt 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, lot's of questions and misinterpretations here.

1) It's not at all ment to duplicate content from Wikipedia, or Wikibooks for that matter. The Wikimedia Board directed the Wikiversity proposal away from classical colleges to more of a "learning by doing"-approach. It's not ment to be a resource on it's own, indeed that's what Wikipedia and WikiBooks are for.

2) It's not ment to be a real university, with diploma's or certificates. There are no exams. It's obvious that that would cause liability issues.

3) POV would equally apply to the project.

4) It's not a discussion forum for questions and answers.

5) Anyone can contribute.

6) Indeed there is only a small target audience -yet.

Wikiversity is still in it's embryonic phase. Most of the current content has simply been moved from Wikibooks where the project was previously hosted, and of course the content hasn't been modified sufficiently to be reliable yet.

So what is the scope of the School of Medicine?

I haven't quite figured it out yet myself, I think it will become clear once the project gains enough critical mass to become more active. But, what I can envision, is that it could be a place to bring together people wanting to learn and people wanting to teach. But not teaching in a classic way, but giving the students assignments and feedback -that's learning by doing. Currently, the main activities for students would be to write pages for the School. It could be reading and writing articles on Wikipedia (providing an improvement drive for this project), and then doing a self-assesment test on Wikiversity, or getting feedback from some kind of mentor that follows your edits here.

Clearly learning at Wikiversity would require a high level of independent working, not just reading articles on that Wiki and passing a test.

So, does that clear out one or two issues? More questions are very much welcome!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hemorrhoids are disgusting

I'm having a discussion over at Talk:Hemorrhoid wether or not the images should stay; many others seem te find them disgusting. I think this could apply to more cases, maybe it's important to have some kind of consensus on this matter? Any advice to untie that Gordian knot might be helpful.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a comment there. Hard problem. NCurse _work 06:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of ways one could go:

1. Move the pictures to a separate page with a warning
2. Try to find illustrations
3. Combination of #1 & #2.

The above said, I've seen pictures in better taste that are illustrative (in med school). On the topic of peri-anal disease, the AAFP has a nice review [2] (with pictures)... though not advisable to view whilst eating or just prior to. Nephron  T|C 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean we've turned the Nephron into the Enterocyte? I'll even (grudgingly) accept Hepatocyte? -- Samir धर्म 10:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... at this stage of my training, I'm like a pluripotent stem cell-- that in theory could differentiate into almost anything. :) Nephron  T|C 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your interest!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interventions

Feedback requested at Template talk:Interventions infobox. --Arcadian 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Bay Area Medical Center

Bay Area Medical Center states: "BAMC was just recently ranked among the top 5% of hospitals in the in the US for clinical excellence by HealthGrades." I found a relevant link about this award here. Can anyone shed some information on this award? Is this something in which you have to enroll in order to be eligible to win? -AED 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is info about it on their web page -- healthgrades.com - FAQ.

Short of the long of it is-- they are a for-profit health care rater/consulting firm and use data available from government sources (Medicare & Medicaid surveys), telephone surveys, state medical board --among other things.

The relationship between this organization and the health industry reminds me a bit about what emerged from the Enron scandal-- how in the USA accounting firms/auditors (Arthur Andersen in the case of Enron) were also doing management consulting, which has been criticized as a conflict of interest. [3]

Healthgrades FAQ:

"... we form alliances with healthcare providers and license their ratings, data and advisory services to: 1. Help top-ranking providers promote their quality services 2. Help providers assess their current level of care and identify areas of improvement" [ emphasis added ]

Nephron  T|C 04:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC: LASIK MD

LASIK MD was recently created by User:Lasikmd. Although it screams "advertisement", I was hoping for a second opinon as to whether it meets the guidelines at WP:CORP prior to consider AfD. Thanks! -AED 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD. For sure. But I have a conflict of interest: I turned them down for my LASIK :( -- Samir धर्म 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the group is worthy of an entry, but the way the article is written is nauseatingly self-congratulatory and more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Also, since it is a Canadian private for-profit health care provider, it is a sort of odd ball. This status, I think, deserves some mention. Nephron  T|C 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have kept some track of where LASIK is going, and this group has been gunning for mileage and has been heavily advertising in the media. The article has been obviously written by a PR employee of the company, given the copy-paste going on from the website. Quoting WP:CORP - Note 1: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. I strongly recommend AfD for this advertorial. EyeMD

Hepatitis C and STDs

Someone has made a template on STD's Template:STD/STI and is vehemently arguing without evidence that Hepatitis C is an STD. Sexual transmission of Hepatitis C is very low, and even the CDC no longer lists sexual transmission as a risk factor of hepatitis C. PMID 16888612 [4]. The American Association for Studies of the Liver (AASLD) does not even recommend the need for barrier protection in monogamous couples where one member has Hepatitis C [5]. Our own article makes it clear that it is not an STD. As such, I've removed it from the template, but one editor disputes this. The template is now blocked because of an edit war. Comments are requested. -- Samir धर्म 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is little evidence (but some) that Hepatitis D is sexually transmitted. It's not listed in the most recent CDC MMWR as an STD [6]. I'd prefer not to have it on an STD template without striking evidence -- Samir धर्म 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be solved. Anyway you're a hepatitis expert, your references seem to be perfect. The template mustn't be on that page. NCurse _work 06:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed Hepatitis A. Although certain practices could lead to sexual transmission of this enterovirus, it is by no means an STD. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Medicine

A recent edit has removed a point of controversy in Emergency Medicine. Before adding back the information, I'd like others thoughts, since I am some what personally biased.

There are two competing board certifications ABEM and BCEM. The major difference is that ABEM certifies physicians who are residency trained in Emergency Medicine, while BCEM will certify those who have followed a practice track. Many who are residency trained in Emergency Medicine feel that the "practice track," while once sufficient, is no longer enough to make one a competant Emergency Physician. Those who have taken and passed the BCEM because they were no ABEM eligible clearly disagree. Florida allows the BCEM by statute, North Caroline rejects it and there is a fight among individual hospitals about whether they will accept BCEM as equivalent to ABEM for "Board Certification in Emergency Medicine.

I'm looking for other people's thoughts about if and how this should be incorperated in the article. Bdolcourt 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cofact

I was wondering if cofact is used anywhere outside of the Netherlands? I could only find information about it on dutch websites. If not, what do you use to treat patients receiving oral anticoagulants who are bleeding? --WS 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's usually called cofactor or a hemostatic agent. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that the more general term often used is prothrombin complex concentrate. --WS 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Prothrombin complex is a specific drug. My drug guide says it "Consists of purified plasma-derived factors II, IX and X. This product also contains heparin 200 units and antithrombin III 25 units per vial." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for work on acute myeloid leukemia

Thanks to everyone who worked on, peer-reviewed, and discussed the acute myeloid leukemia article. It looks pretty good (although of course can always be improved) and has been accepted as a Featured Article. MastCell 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I was wondering if someone might want to briefly check the contributions of a new user who has been adding information to various pharmaceutical articles. Some of the information User:Chrisgaffneymd has added appears to have been copied from drug data sheets and his Talk page indicates he has a (short) history of adding copied material. The subject matter is beyond my area of expertise. -AED 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Greg Baer

Although Greg Baer appears to be a notable author of relationship books based on sales, I am not sure how his medical background should be addressed in the article. In an interview given to his brother, in an excerpt from a book, on his website, and on various website mirroring what he has stated on his website, he claims to have "received the highest honors in medical school", to have "established one of the most successful ophthalmology practices in the country", and to have "taught the latest in surgical techniques to other physicians across the country". There is no indication from him or anyone else when or where he went to medical school. The bottom line is that there is nothing to verify his medical background other what he states that it is. Thoughts? -AED 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is info on the web about Baer -- that is if he is called "BAER, GREGORY SHERWIN". A quickie search of the Georgia Medical board came up with:

BAER, GREGORY SHERWIN

License	Status	Issue Date	Expiration Date	Specialty
027157	Surrendered	02/06/1985	12/31/1997	Ophthalmology

Nephron  T|C 05:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. "Gregory S. Baer" appears to match up with the same "Greg Baer" in a Google search. How did you know where to look to find that information> -AED 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, Baer was born in and lives in Georgia. So, knowing that in North America all licensed physicians can be looked up on the medical board's web site/college's web site and assuming Baer practised in Georgia, before starting his writing career, I just 'googled' for the Georgia medical board and then did a physician search. Nephron  T|C 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia ref in BMJ

Not a participant in this project, and probably the wrong place to put this, but Fiona Godlee has "cited" Wikipedia (most likely this article) in her editorial in this week's BMJ: editorial • commentary Fvasconcellos 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. I wish the article had references itself so we could make sure it really is true! InvictaHOG 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pyroluria

Someone kindly alerted me about pyroluria. I tagged it {{NPOV}} (not something I do frequently) because it creates the impression it is a bona fide medical condition (quod non). JFW | T@lk 18:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See this: [7] --WS 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Try this Google search for "Wikipedia" on the "www.clinicalanswers.nhs.uk" site: [8]. It is very worrying that the UK NHS's National Library for Health is using Wikipedia as a reference. Colin°^Talk 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed them and they were very helpful and responsive. All the entries now include the warning:

NOTE: Wikipedia is a collaborative online resource with many potential authors. This can have positive and negative implications. We recommend you treat wikipedia articles with an increased level of scepticism.

Colin°^Talk 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychosis

Psychosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tree of Hippocrates is a DYK candidate

I've put this article up for DYK, hoping that it will have the same fate as Robinow syndrome did... I'm inviting everyone to improve this article!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Various articles for deletion

For those interested:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackpotwatch. -AED 05:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phytofruit2. -AED 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'ama Yehuda. -AED 22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian american medical association -AED 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Induction Theory of Ulcerative Colitis (per JFW) -AED 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Chauhan (physician) -AED 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumer Kumar Sethi -AED 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals (per WS) -AED 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahraban Abdullah (Dr.) -AED 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Meltzer -AED 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kha Hoang -AED 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)</s?

RfC: Which way to redirect?

Oculoplastics to Oculoplastic surgery or Oculoplastic surgery to Oculoplastics? -AED 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would redirect to oculoplastics. InvictaHOG 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. EyeMD 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert war on Psoriasis

David Ruben and I are involved in a tedious revert war involving external link spam in the article Psoriasis. I'd appreciate any third party help! Thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10