Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 106

Archive 100

←

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

→

Archive 110

Update for the Antidepressant Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability Table?

SNRI

Hi, I just wanted to make an observation that the relative efficacy references for the antidepressant CET Table aren't exactly comprehensive with respect to the scale of antidepressants mentioned, and that the relative efficacy scores are a bit off compared to their user reviews. The Lancet review in there has the SSRIS/SSNRIs and the NaSSA Mirtazapine included, but the MAOIs and TCAs are noticeably absent. Then there's one reference in there, the Martindale Complete drug reference, that requires registration to access, and then there's just some stuff on St. John's Wort. Are there no WP:MEDRS available to catalogue more assertively and comprehensively the antidepressant spectrum? The scores in the relative efficacy column also seem to be a bit off compared with the user review scores of the various medicines on a review page like drugs.com (now I'm not saying that that's definitively worth its salt given all the factors that can influence the judgment of those taking the medicine, but even if it's obviously a rougher and unscientific tool compared with what you could glean from medrs, it still has some value). For example, clomipramine (scored a 3 in the RE table) and tranylcypromine (scored a 2) are in the 8.5-9 range. Then come a few like sertraline (3), escitalopram (3), and mirtazapine (3) in the 7-7.5 range, followed lastly by a few like paroxetine (2) and duloxetine (2) in the 6.5-7 range. Moreover, since some people come here just looking for a bottom line estimate of what works best, wouldn't it also make sense to give the antidepressant CET table its own section on the antidepressant page? Looking forward to hearing your responses! 95.128.118.58 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? Natureium (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Poster's contribs suggest they may have meant Atypical antipsychotic, but more likely Antidepressant#Comparative efficacy and tolerability.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

agree[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, Antidepressant#Comparative efficacy and tolerability, you got it. Any feedback on my original post? :) 95.128.118.58 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That reminds me about a new pop sci article on non-drug treatment of depression: Geddes, Linda (23 January 2018). "A Counterintuitive Idea For Treating Severe Depression: Stay Awake". Smithsonian.

If you see new editors trying to add information about sleep as a treatment for depression during the next few days, then their activity may be related to this interesting article. It'd probably be good to have a look at our articles on depression to see whether we're giving DUE weight to non-drug treatments anyway. There's also some easy-to-understand information about the possible role of circadian rhythms in causing depression. Major depressive disorder#Pathophysiology mentions this as a leading theory for the cause, but does not seem to contain even a single sentence to explain it.

User:Hordaland has unfortunately been inactive for months, and I don't know who else is interested in sleep issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Until I looked closer at the article and sought some sources, I had no idea that antidepressants were such a farce. Reviews such as PMID 29270136, PMID 23152227, and PMID 29330216 make it clear that this huge business is built on at-best ephemeral data. If the best evidence can barely distinguish efficacy between placebo and any of a long list of drugs (many with significant negative side effects), then this field is even worse than homeopathy which at least does minimal direct harm. Shouldn't the article address that more directly? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. The more severe the depression the more efficacy antidepressants show; for mild depression their benefit is indeed unclear. (and a lot of the geldmacherei has been trying to expand their use into mild depression).

Two of the problems with antidepressant trials is that they are run on people with a wide range of kinds and severity of depression (going for the biggest market possible); the other is the shitty tools we have to stratify patients - things like the hamilton index are very blunt instruments. it is pretty clear by now that there are many kinds of depression (like there are many kinds of cancer) but the field still lacks tools to tell them apart in a robust way... which makes drug discovery and development messy and risky

but yes there are big vats of data out there that people have looked at in various ways. But taking away the broad message that "antidepressants are a farce" is bad medicine. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought about creating Hamilton index as a redirect to Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, but it turns out that there's another (possibly notable) Hamilton index used in water quality/chemistry.

What Jytdog says about stratifying patients is mentioned in that article; one of the promoters of the sleep cycle/etc. approach says that, like drugs, it helps some, does nothing for others, and he has no way to know who will or won't benefit in advance. But I've certainly read a lot of (non-pharma-funded) sources that would agree with LeadSongDog: for mild (or even moderate) depression, the odds of an SSRI helping is low enough that placebo effect is a realistic explanation. If people aren't leaving the article with the impression that (a) depression really can be treated, but (b) a pill, or even a long series of pills, probably isn't going to help most depressed people, then we need to improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The few readers who comb carefully through the article might very well grasp (b), but the lede certainly does not convey the idea. It does not meet wp:SUMMARY.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Who is adding these huge tables to articles? This one is an WP:OR nightmare with sources from 1998. I moved it out of the article to the talk page but I am not sure it should be anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

At least it's collapsed? With good sources, it could probably be an article on its own. Natureium (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and made it its own article Comparative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and redirected that back to the antidepressant article and opened a discussion at Talk:Antidepressant#Discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and can certainly be updated with more current refs. Natureium (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This one appears to have been introduced when this edit by @Fuse809: transplanted it from here.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Awesome that you guys are being so proactive about it! Kind of a bummer with the government shutdown that the gov pubmed system is down as it's certainly time to start tackling this challenge and finding and encouraging new research in this field. 95.128.118.58 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Pubmed isn't down, they just didn't add new articles for one day. There are also other databases for finding articles. Natureium (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Temozolomide typo

Can someone who can check things carefully and has the time to make sure things are OK with the articles, have a look at the instances of the typo 'temozolamide' that appear in Wikipedia? I think it should be temozolomide. This typo appears on three pages (twice in the references in Evangelos Katsioulis), also in triazene and epithelioid sarcoma. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling on the 2 pages, but didn't change the references, because that's how it appears on those websites. Natureium (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

On the Katsioulis website, yes, they have mis-spelt it. In the actual journals that published the research, the spelling is correct. Google the exact phrase "Salvage Therapy with Temozolamide" and you get 10 results. Google the exact phrase "Salvage Therapy with Temozolomide" and you get 6,850 results. I don't think Wikipedia should contribute to this mis-spelling spreading. I've changed the spelling on those two instances (though it remains in the URL). Thanks, btw, for editing the Evangelos Katsioulis page. It does need some attention! Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User's Manual for the Human Body

• User's Manual for the Human Body (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently moved from draft space to main space. I'm wondering if notability is met, although the article claims it's a best-seller. Then there are problematic unsourced author claims of course... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on the article text, it seems notable, but that could all be a farce, because I can't read the chinese sources. Natureium (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability (books), any two reviews (professional-type, not Amazon customers or personal bloggers) means that a book is likely to be notable. I think it is therefore reasonably safe to assume that any book with sources that aren't obviously written by the author or just a blog post or reader review, is likely to be notable. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books would be able to give you more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Research on getting experts to contribute

The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed on YouTube this Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 19:30 UTC (that's 8:30 a.m. 2:30 p.m. EST).

There are two presentations scheduled. The first is "What motivates experts to contribute to public information goods? A field experiment at Wikipedia" by Yan Chen at the University of Michigan, and may be of particular interest to WPMED folks. They investigated possible incentives, such as likely citation, public acknowledgement and the number of views an article receives, and how to find a good match between a promising expert and a suitable article. The second is "Wikihounding on Wikipedia", which attempts to measure various aspects of wikihounding problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this WhatamIdoing! JenOttawa (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Appears to be at 2:30 EST when I go to the youtube site. I can not make it but will be watching for a recording. JenOttawa (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Thank you for posting the correction. I apologize for the confusion.

For those who are wondering, it's three hours from now, whenever that is in your time zone.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

TIL: wikihounding.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I will watch the video to learn more. I am skeptical that professional advancement motives by themselves lead to sustained Wikipedia involvement. // Here's my elevator pitch for recruiting other psychologists: "I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia - it is meaningful and rewarding community service work. People who could not access knowledge unless they traveled to a large city with a library, can now learn about almost anything from a volunteer-driven website, available in dozens of languages."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark, are you mostly talking to clinicians or academics? I assume that the professional incentives are different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Both, but about 3/4 academics. Good point re: they will often have different perspectives.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that I am a paragon of WP editing, nor that this is academically rigorous, I've made some comments on this topic. Just my $0.02 — soupvector (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this soupvector. Interesting presentation and ideas! I am trying to recruit Cochrane-Wikipedia editors though Cochrane's Task Exchange. If anyone has any more suggestions on how to attract and retain more expert contributors, I would appreciate them. JenOttawa (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor detail: The experiment on recruiting experts was sent to 4,000 people. Only one said that s/he already edited Wikipedia. That suggests that 99.9% of experts aren't editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm impressed - 1000 responses (25%) is quite a high response rate for a survey of experts. — soupvector (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty good response rate, isn't it? They did find that more prominent experts were unlikely to respond, which is one of the things that they had expected.

For those who haven't watched it (you only need to watch the first ~40 minutes, although there are some interesting questions at the end), they first tried to find experts who published relevant articles, then they sent them some e-mail messages, and finally (if requested) they sent the experts a list of a half-dozen Wikipedia articles that were matched to their own publications, and then asked them to submit offline comments on those articles. Comments from the experts ranged from a single sentence to practically re-writing the article. Two things that I remember being motivating factors for the experts:

1. Telling them that one of their publications might already be cited in the article. I'm thinking that this could be flattering (see, Wikipedia loves you!), but it could be motivating in the sense that the authors probably want to make certain that their work isn't being misrepresented or presented negatively.
   • On a related point, I've written a few authors to ask a question or to ask them to double-check that I'd fairly summarized their publications in an article, and I've gotten a response rate that is much higher than just 25%, so if you're struggling with an article, try writing to the author of your favorite source.
2. Telling them that their comments or advice for improving the article would be published on the article's talk page, with their name. (User:ExpertIdeasBot was used to do this.) Interestingly, this particular group had a lower rate of self-citation (which generally was not a significant problem for any group).

On the "getting the stuff into articles" step (which is harder), smaller comments/suggestions were more likely to get adopted than radical re-writes. The researcher also briefly mentioned using the Wiki Ed program to have students consider implementing these expert suggestions, and this seemed to have a much higher success rate (as measured by the rest of us not needing to revert them) than having the students add their own ideas to an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WPMED as a group

If you're interested in organizations work and how editors get things done as a group (rather than as individuals), then this m:Community Capacity Map exercise might be an interesting thing to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

valuable information[2], thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Source in want of articles

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31869-X is a systematic review and meta-analysis of health inequalities in people who are homeless, in prison, drug users or engaged in prostitution. This is a perfect source for quite a few articles, and would be helpful when it comes to reporting on systemic bias. (It's also free.) JFW | T@lk 13:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Parallel review about inclusion health: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31959-1 JFW | T@lk 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion health or Inclusion health care or something else? Either way, we should probably have an article on the subject. (I think that Healthcare disparity isn't quite the same thing, although anyone interested in the one is probably interested in the other.)

The review is PMID 29137869 for anyone who looks up sources that way, and the full text is free. It covers "homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals", so this goes far beyond the conclusion that the health status of poor minorities is worse than people from privileged groups.

The first conclusion is that women in these highly stigmatized and marginalized groups are harmed (even) more than men, so I think I'll copy this link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's Health and maybe a few other places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Bair Hugger undisclosed paid editing

• Bair Hugger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#JessikaRita_and_friends. It looks like this article was created as part of a PR campaign (alongside http://www.truthaboutbairhugger.com/) to counter lawsuits [3] surrounding whether the devices are safe. "According to an article in the New York Times, Dr. Scott D. Augustine, inventor of the Bair Hugger warming blanket, no longer supports the use of the device and has expressed his concern that it poses a danger to patients. The doctor has since invented a new warming device that doesn’t use forced air. He promotes this device as a safer alternative."SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I use the device relatively frequently in trauma and in hypothermic patients. Have been generally fairly happy with it and it is one of a number of recommended devices in hypothermia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

More eyes please at Osimertinib,

Osimertinib

Please see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

actually problematic user was a sock who is now blocked. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Parasagittal MRI of human head in patient with benign familial macrocephaly prior to brain injury (ANIMATED).gif

This is something I wondered about years ago, and still wonder today: What has File:Parasagittal MRI of human head in patient with benign familial macrocephaly prior to brain injury (ANIMATED).gif lost on the various neurodegeneration pages? Assuming for a moment that the diagnosis is correct, is it really neuodegenerative? Especially since it's called "benign". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Animated GIF of a sagittal MRI is no way to read an MRI, but it's not a dramatic demonstration of anything in particular. I certainly wouldn't use that to illustrate neurodegenerative disease. This highlights a general inconsistency application of MEDRS: we insist on high-quality sourcing of text, but near-zero sourcing standards for images (including videos). — soupvector (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We generally crowd source interpretations of most images. If we could only use published OA images our options would be few.

Of course we also use common sense and remove stuff that does not appear accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

...ideally including things that we can source as being accurate. The point of an image is to illustrate the text. Something that's known to be accurate, but doesn't look like it, is not actually useful for an encyclopedia (unless you're specifically illustrating the fact of atypical presentations, etc.).

You could think of using free images as our version of paraphrasing the high-quality sources: it's not supposed to be exactly the same (words/photo) as the copyright-restricted source(s), but the article should say the same things as the sources.

It may be surprising, but we have had very little difficulty with this over the years. There's the guy who made a lot of self-portraits showing different moods on a beach, who was accused of spamming selfies into articles; there was the AIDS denialist who objected to some micrographs; there's the occasional local dispute over whether an image is just decorative/non-educational. We have had a few problems with anatomical diagrams being oversimplified or slightly off (including at least one that was deemed "inaccurate" by some WPMED folks despite being a probable copyvio from a reputable source), and one dental photo that was accurate but didn't label everything in sufficient detail. But that's about it. A significant problem comes up maybe once a year, which is not much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I disagree with this interpretation. One reason that we don't identify problems is that images are subject to less scrutiny. They contain many more data points than similarly sized text and are more difficult to adjust, and also have no generally accepted venue for discussion of errors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom, I think it depends what you have in mind when you think of "an image". The one at the top of Pregnancy probably contains fewer "data points" than similarly sized text. I doubt that we'll ever get a serious objection about whether that image looks like a pregnant woman, much less a demand that there be proof that she was actually pregnant and not merely a model working with a particularly skilled costumer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We could add references to official photos of the same thing. Our own photos would than be paraphrasing of sorts :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A semblance of verification would be better than none. — soupvector (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We could us radiopedia to reference all X-ray related stuff.[4]

We could use libre pathology for all things pathology related.[5]

This has a great collection of derm photos.[6]

Would people consider those authoritative enough? They are open access at least, though not free access. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we really can't use Radiopedia or Libre Pathology to reference anything. Or, more precisely, you probably could, because relatively few experienced editors would dare to object to any source you liked, but if a new editor did the same thing, then they'd probably get reverted and yelled at about failing to follow MEDRS. Basically, we can't go around reverting people who cite peer-reviewed scientific journal articles (as you did today for PMID 26770129 [a review] and PMID 27927636 [a clinical trial involving 28,000+ patients) on the grounds that articles "need to use proper sources", and then say that a crowd-sourced wiki is going to be okay as a source for radiology images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Colles fracture. Verification? Just look at it.

We also say that extraordinary claims require extra-ordinal sources. That this fracture is a Colles fracture is like saying the sky is blue. Completely non controversial and obvious.

Trying to claim that vitamin K2 will cure atherosclerosis is a different matter entirely.[7] And in the latter case a journal with an impact factor of zero simple is not sufficient.

And than state that Nato (which is very delicious by the way) has benefits because of vit K. After a food questionnaire looking at a whole bunch of variables found one that crossed a p of 0.05 maybe.

References text is different than references images. I do not think we need the same criteria to apply to both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

image ("own work") purported to be erythema nodosum (not by the image uploader)

Some images are uncontroversial, but should we have some criterion for inclusion of an image based on more than its label in Commons? I'm sure that someone like Doc James can recognize a Colles fracture, but many radiographs are more complex or have other findings as well, potentially misleading readers. To avoid cherry-picking, I thought I'd start from the top of our Popular medical pages. The pages on Anthrax and Tuberculosis illustrate how well-sourced images can be - they come almost exclusively from highly-reliable sources (for the claims being made). In contrast, when I looked at Crohn's_disease I see this image of "erythema nodosum", and while that might depict someone with Crohn disease and e. nodosum with extensive ulceration, we have no way of verifying that; moreover, e. nodosum typically does not ulcerate and ulceration is a very prominent feature of that image. This is a hard problem, but that's why we're here. — soupvector (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pyoderma gangrenosum

The picture that User:Crohnie uploaded of Pyoderma gangrenosum is amazing. This looks exactly like cases I have seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Precisely - one is excellent and one is not. Readers have no indication of the difference, and editors grab both without having a reliable source (associated with the image) to guide them, or any guidance on criteria to use for verification/verifiability (and, no standard process to follow to make a record of efforts to verify). — soupvector (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If we look at picture 9 here of erythema nodosum[8] This is what I am more used to it looking like. Medscape give this ref as the source But this is actually my picture which they are plagiarizing.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hum 13/21 is my image aswell with my left thumb in the picture...

Removed the image of concern from the EN CD page per [10]

The CDC has a limited number of pictures. We use them when they are avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of the principle seems fruitless if we continue to lose focus by pursuing tangents. I'll defer to others. — soupvector (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you proposing as a solution User:soupvector?

Many accept Emedicine / Medscape as a suitable sources for medical content. And thus if you are proposing using them and they simply plagiarize from us we are not really father ahead.

You raised a concern about an image on CD, I agreed with your concern and removed the image in question. What tangent are you referring to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

the images serve their purpose...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Doc James, please stop talking about how many of your Commons images have been re-used elsewhere; it's not relevant to the question of how editors could determine whether a particular image is an appropriate illustration for an article.

The main process that experienced editors use – which is AFAIK not documented anywhere – is (a) to see what images we've got available and (b) to see what images reliable sources use. If what we've got looks like the sources use, then they add the images to the article. If what we got looks different, then they don't.

My process for (b) involves directly looking up images in sources, while yours might involve something closer to remembering what your med school textbooks said, but we're still both (directly or indirectly) consulting sources at some level. I don't think that this is unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• perhaps add to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ..

Choosing sources[11]

Non-free content

See also: FUTON bias A Wikipedia article should cite high-quality reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription. Some high-quality journals, such as JAMA, publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free. A few high-quality journals, such as PLoS Medicine, publish only freely readable sources. Also, a few sources are in the public domain; these include many U.S. government publications, such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Images

While all medical image downloads are welcomed, generally it is best practice to verify the image and therefore how it would strengthen are article (as opposed to an unverified image). Images may be verified via source(journals, books, NIH,WHO...) and by individual(s) who have identified themselves as working in said "subject" --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced that what we do now is really an issue. Yes occasionally errors occur, are pointed out, and fixed. Would requiring references change this, especially when some references we supposedly view as reliable copy from us, I do not think so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are the words you just wrote about images not applicable to text for which we require MEDRS? I don't think that images should simply get a pass for reliable sourcing - we know that they convey a lot of information. — soupvector (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure so:

1) Images are generally simply depictions of what is present. There is very little input by the person pushing the button on the camera / adding the image to Wikipedia. For medical imaging like Xray or CT creative input is even less such that in the US it is not technically copyright-able.

2) Text is usually very different. A statement such as "tPA is most useful if given within 3 hours" is not obvious and can only be derived following 100s of carefully collected observations.

Now there are of course exceptions in both directions. Heat maps that display rates of disease in different areas need references. And simple observations like "the sky is blue" do not.

Do you have a suggestion regarding how we should do it differently? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If there were an expectation of (and some standard for) good sourcing for medically-relevant images (e.g. those used in WPMED articles), perhaps that expectation could be promulgated like other such expectations. The suggestion by Ozzie10aaaa above seems constructive, but you brushed it aside (a pattern here, IMHO). I'm trying to be helpful by expressing what I think is a reasonable concern; I may not be the most experienced with regard to potential WP-feasible solutions. — soupvector (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

soupvector, I think we can improve our advice. At this point, just encouraging uploaders to add a source on the description page would be an improvement, and surely we could do that much somewhere.

But it would be helpful to have some idea of what constitutes verification. So let's back up to something that requires no technical expertise whatsoever. There's a McDonald's about a mile away from me. If I took a picture of it today and uploaded it with the caption "a McDonald's in California in 2018", then what would you accept as "verification" that it was a picture of the fast food restaurant in question, or that it was specifically a McDonald's located in California, or that the picture was taken in 2018? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First, I agree that simply asking folks to aspire to good sourcing will change the expectation from the current "meh". Like RS issues generally, it would depend on what's claimed, perhaps? Using my example above of an unsourced image of "erythema nodosum" (since removed from the misleading position in the article): when an image is being used to represent a typical presentation of a condition, I would argue that the bar should be high - bordering on MEDRS - because the wrong image could be very misleading (in the same manner as text) for readers interested in the condition (rashes are difficult even for experienced clinicians, and have many facets that are non-obvious to a casual observer just trying to match what they think might be key features). For plain film bone radiographs, it's a little bit simpler but I would propose that the source should be credible (perhaps not MEDRS) and attest to the labeled condition; captions should make visible, to the extent possible, the source/verification used. Absence of such attestation could be sufficient reason for a WPMED member to ask for input here at WTMED. I have access to many clinical images and experts, and would be happy to help obtain/verify useful images, but it's hard to know what's needed. I'm not suggesting this is easy (or that this is the right approach) but images are too potent to leave unsourced. — soupvector (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggested using Radiopedia for X-rays which was deemed inappropriate. What source are you suggesting for the Colles fracture image?

Anyone can bring concerns here regarding an image regardless of if it is sourced or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think WTMED is an excellent place to ask for comment; such discussion might be best located on the Commons talk page for the image in question (for future reference). Of course, a MEDRS-sourced image with WP-compliant license would be better (when available). A list of desired medical images would give me and others a shopping list. — soupvector (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen this help page? Wikipedia:Pictures_for_medical_articles

I am perfectly happy with images from the CDC and US government.

Are you proposing removing medical images taken and uploaded by Wikipedians?

With respect to some images like that of strep throat and mono one needs to combine the image with culture results / other tests. So sometimes we need to trust that the uploader did this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Had not seen that help page - good to know, thanks. Agree with usefulness of CDC etc public domain images from reliable sources. I think we should think about how to assess medical images from wikipedians, and try to maintain some evidence of "patrolling" when that occurs. Not sure how "mono" (mononucleosis) and "culture" are linked - we rarely culture EBV or CMV for that purpose - but I would agree with the notion that verification of diagnosis is one important component of making sure that an image is what it purports to be. — soupvector (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course culture is just for strep throat with other tests being used to confirm mono.

Per "how to assess medical images from wikipedians" currently we simple do it ad hoc. There are a bunch of ways we could formalize this more I guess from linking to sources that have similar images to creating a group with the authority to add an "approved" tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating a group with authority to add an "approved" tag is not going to be accepted by the community; it violates the principle that wikis are based upon.

Soupvector, how much does it actually matter that "an image is what it purports to be"? If we've got an image that looks like a pregnant woman, does it actually matter if she's really, truly pregnant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that obviously uncontroversial images won't misinform. Again, the same goes for text. An image that purports to represent X condition contains many features. In the case of a rash, important features may include the color, texture, integrity, layers, etc of the skin; using an image that is well-sourced does 2 things: it vastly improves the likelihood that it is representative of X, and it provides a traceable link to a verifiable source. Cropping of an image - making it differ from the source image - might remove or distort a key feature of the image. I mention the latter because cropping and other manipulations of an image might be analogous to paraphrasing of well-sourced text. I am not trying (though I fear that I may appear) to flog a dead horse here, so I'm tempted to drop the crop having said this. — soupvector (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You probably missed the fights over the photo at the top of Pregnancy; they were a few years ago.

Having an image from a reliable source does not necessarily correlate with the image being representative. (I get 49 hits on 'uncommon presentation' just among recent reviews at PubMed; the more unusual it is, the more likely it is to be published.) But the problem that I need to solve isn't how to copy an image out of a (freely licensed) reliable source. Wikipedians are already pretty good about that. The problem I need to solve is how to source the photographs that Doc James takes at his hospital. How would you do that? Look at something like File:RapidAFib150.jpg. I assume that pretty much any med student could figure that out. (I assume that if I were willing to read Chou's Electrocardiography, then I could figure it out, too, but I'm not, so I can't.) But what exactly would be a reliable source for saying "This image shows an EKG for a rapid afib"? Is having a reliable source even theoretically possible for that statement, even if the claim is undisputed by anyone who knows anything about EKGs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If a reliable source says something is an unusual presentation of X, that will help to avoid using that image to represent X (so I don't really see that as undermining citation of reliable sources when using images in article space); I accept that there is a bias toward novelty in recent literature, but there are also many reliable sources that strive to represent the usual in an accurate way - and I'm happy to work to get such licensed in WP-compliant ways. The ECG image is an excellent illustration of the challenge - there's a lot going on in every ECG, and simply posting it should not be sufficient (I would hope that in a future GA or FA review, e.g. of Atrial fibrillation, this would be a stumbling block). In this specific example, having one or more cardiologists interpret the ECG formally - with the interpretation(s) stored in Commons with the image - would make this much more reliable. As a process, I can imagine providing ECGs to Cardiology colleagues and asking them to interpret them fully (and handling their interpretations in a manner that maintains provenance); I would suggest that they would become useful only when the interpretation is normal except for one characteristic of interest (just spitballing here - I'm sure this suggestion has flaws, but we need a starting point). — soupvector (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In the real world, that's probably a good approach (and feasible, since experts are usually pretty helpful when we ask). But on Wikipedia, if you used that approach to source a sentence, it would be a violation of the current approach to WP:V and WP:NOR. It's even addressed in the FAQ: "Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published." The reason for considering this to be unverifiable is that there's no realistic way for a reader to check the source themselves. Even if you know who the cardiologist is, s/he who may not choose to reply to inquiries (and will eventually die).

We could change the policies to accommodate this approach, but I'd have a hard time explaining why having an editor post "This is sourced because Cardiologist Carla looked at this in the elevator and said that's right" should be okay for an image and not for text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you invoked casual conversation or an elevator - I did not mean to imply either. I realize we'll require some tweaking of process to deal with images from unreliable sources (self-made), but the current "system" of zero verification/reliability seems unsustainable for a credible encyclopedia. — soupvector (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the classic proof by eminent authority for maths folks.  :-)

We need to get better. I just don't know how to get from "Doc James says that an eminent authority said this" to the ideal state of "This is accepted as verification". Maybe that's a problem for another day, though, and we should start with merely encouraging people to provide whatever they can, as being better than nothing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree - thank you. (it's been a good discussion; the archive bot will allow us to forget this rapidly :-) ) — soupvector (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Total viewership for 2017

Our medical content in English for 2017 received 2.217 billion pageviews.[12] This includes both mobile and desktop readership.

How this compares to previous years is not really clear as how pageviews are calculated changed in May of 2015. Additionally tools for calculating pageviews were not very functional in the early part of 2016 and prior to that the tools did not include mobile.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way each year I try to get calculated how many editors make more than 250 edits per year across all languages. The people who have done the calculating for me in the past (User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g) appear to have become too busy with other work. Not sure how complicated it is to calculate (I think the scripts are somewhere).

Not sure if anyone else is interested in this sort of work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How many WPMED pages are there? --Zefr (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Today, 40,774. Natureium (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How complicated is this process? Natureium (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. It requires running scripts on the database and handing large amounts of data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your link says Access Denied. Natureium (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed sharing so anyone can see. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James:: When you get around to creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2017 (all), don't forget to add the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Top medical editors navigation navbar transclusion (syntax: {{:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Top medical editors navigation}}).
Anyway, I could probably create that page if you find the scripts they used, provided that I know the programming language they used to write the script or can at least read+edit the code if I'm unfamiliar with it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for this number. People ask and it is useful to have a number to share. 2 billion is a lot of views for one unified channel. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • One can also add that number at least again for all the other languages in which there is medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A new article I created

The other day I created Fetal tissue in vaccines because I was reminded of this being an issue. I'd like other editors in this project to look it over and/or improve it as they see fit. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 20:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

See "Despite the Vatican's longstanding and complete opposition to abortion, their Pontifical Academy for Life concluded in 2005 that parents should allow their children to receive vaccines made from fetal tissue, to protect them from infectious diseases." Source needed for claim. QuackGuru (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a good one. — soupvector (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential merger of Qapqal disease & botulism

Hi, there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not to merge Qapqal disease with botulism. It would be helpful if more people could weigh in. Thanks! Enwebb (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Cancer survival rates

Just came across this article--clearly needs a lot of work, mainly because it is extremely US-centric. Eyes appreciated. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

might help[14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anybody have any experience with Chimera?

Because this certainly isn't your run-of-the-mill Teahouse question, and I don't even know enough about it to explain why I can't answer it. GMG^talk 03:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:CCS (gene). — soupvector (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Male expendability

This article is in the NPP queue - appeared as though the article creator is trying to coin the term. The cited sources point to Wikipedia articles about the journals. I was not able to find any sources that defined this term. I nominated it for a speedy delete by the tag was removed so before I take it to AfD, I was hoping a medical expert could take a look at it and advise. Thanks in advance ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain this is really a WikiProject Medicine issue. It's more a sociology topic. I've skimmed through the first two cited papers -- one by Gullvåg and one by Milojević -- and the article does summarise them appropriately. Neither paper uses the exact phrase "male expendability", but they do use equivalent words. Milojević talks of the "expendability of men", and that might be a more appropriate article title.

Whether there's enough here for a notable article, I'm uncertain. Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, probably more in the area of gender studies than medicine. The term is used in quite few books but it doesn't seem very stable and so far as I can see has no sustained treatment in any one text. Probably the concept fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thx all - actually found the correct place and now a discussion has begun on the TP of the article. I also found this: Misandry#Male_disposability so a redirect or merge may be an option.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The velvet complex

Can somebody take a look at this, please I did a search for this gbooks, and just online, and so many links came. It seems to be in every biological system, and is primary, but no mention of the proteins in WP. The work seems to have been done in 60's and 70's. All the ref are super specific. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Scope creep I moved these here, from Portal talk:Medicine - I don't think nearly as many folks watch that page as this one. If it is upsetting that I did this, please feel free to revert me here and there. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, No. With a bit of luck somebody will create an article with it. scope_creep (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Might belong with WP:WikiProject_Microbiology rather than here, but there are good sources e.g. PMID 21658084 and PMID 18457967 — soupvector (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• i fixed it up a bit and moved it to mainspaceVelvet complex. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Husband stitch

We have discussed this previously and further thoughts appreciated. There is very little good literature on the topic. The best of the bad lot appears to describe it as an urban legend.

Pubmed comes up with nothing for either primary or secondary sources.[15] The term appears to have been popularized following the publication of a fictional book. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a recent news story here. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The comments at the bottom of that news story are quite telling. --RexxS (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. Underneath certain blog posts, there are lots of comments from women saying they had it done and, in a few cases, that it ruined their bodies for them. Do we still have gynaecologists on WikiProject Medicine? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Ekem, have you heard of the husband stitch, also known as the "daddy stitch"? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The story makes great click bait. This 1994 book touches on it[16] and than a couple of none pubmed indexed article comment in passing.[17] Previously it was said to be done for both sexes and the claimed benefit for the women appears to have been dropped from the recent retellings.

If this was a true practice done without consent one would expect lawsuits (husbands would agree under oath that the doc asked this, nursing staff would concur, statements would be caught on video / recordings which are now common etc). If this was a requested practice done with consent one would expect actual literature on the topic and their would be a paper trail. People could produce hospital records of them signing and the doc would be documenting the procedure and discussion of risks / benefits.

If there was a lawsuit this would be all over the news. If this was done without consent their is a good chance that it would result in lose of a MD's license which are publicly documented. While a lawsuit may be a high bar, complaints to a licensing body with them required to investigate cost nothing and can be done via a single email.

What there is mostly is chat rooms and very low quality popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Vaginal tightening surgery has been around since the mid fifties, where gynecologists used to tighten the entrance of a woman's vagina with an extra stitch while repairing vaginal and perineum tears or episiotomies after giving birth. At that time it was notoriously known as the 'husband's stitch,' the 'husband's knot,' or the 'vaginal tuck,' and doctors discreetly referred to this procedure as 'improving a woman's well-being.'" ("Aesthetic Surgery of the Female Genitalia", Seminars in Plastic Surgery, 2011). SarahSV ^(talk) 04:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:SlimVirgin. We have an open copy here [18].

Goes on to say "Ninety five percent of patients treated with lateral colporrhaphy reported an improvement in sexual sensitivity, as well as greater vaginal tightness at the 6 months follow-up." which I find somewhat hard to believe.

It references this on page 170[19]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

SV, I have heard of this term as far back as 1980(!); and yes, I am pretty old. I only know a bit about this topic because of the current effort in preparing Vagina for GA. There are articles that are related: Vaginal rejuvenation, Vaginal tightening, and Vaginoplasty. None of these have a reference that uses the term 'husband stitch'. There is one MEDRS ref in the vagina article that might be relevant, but it is written by a plastic surgeon. And perhaps and equally as important, is the lack of content anywhere related to informed consent (partly my fault because I thought it was a given and a 'sky is blue' kind of thing.) A sentence on informed consent could probably be inserted into every women's health article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

HA! At least the topic of the Husband stitch could be inserted into the Sexism in medicine without the requirement for the use of MEDRS citations. Again, Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

SV, I am not aware of any textbook or medical literature regarding the "husband stitch", - this is in contrast to "vaginal rejuvenation" and "vaginoplasty". If the perineum is cut or torn during the birthing process, the obstetrician repairs the vaginal wall and perineum using his/her experience to determine how tight the repair should be but, basically, they will follow the edges, the tissue just joining neatly together. I have seen some practitioners (decades ago) doing this more tightly than others but not observed an extra stitch in addition to the repair with edges already closed.Ekem (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ekem: thank you, that's helpful. It's difficult to know what's being referred to by that term, and how we should present it. I may write to a couple of the medical sources to try to pin it down further. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me add: You can "bulk" more tissue into the episiotomy stitches and the opening may become more thight. As a rule of thumb (no pun) some practitioners use a something like a "two-finger test" to check that the vaginal opening will be what maybe considered adequate. I say "will be" as the postpartum process itself will readjust the width of the vagina which minutes ago had allowed the passage of the baby's head.Ekem (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Unbound Medicine search

Is this new? It looks a mobile app that enables folks to do a search of medical journal articles on their phone. Slick. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 12:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

may have seen it before...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Human blood group systems

Platelets

above article could use some edits(help), specifically references, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Treetear thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Did only some minor cleanup, no problem. Still needs attention from someone more knowledgeable and/or willing to do further cleanup. :) --Treetear (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Added a suggestion on Talk:Human blood group systems to see what other says about it being suitable that the article only consists of the List? It will otherwise be a duplicate more or less of the Blood type article. Please chime in with your thoughts on linked talk page! --Treetear (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

commented, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hadiza Bawa-Garba

Does this person seem notable to folks here?

She's an MD who, back in 2011, was in the last year of her residency and a boy, Jack Adcock, died during a rotation in which she was the most senior doctor covering the Children’s Assessment Unit (CAU), the emergency department, and the ward CAU at Leicester Royal Infirmary. Her own notes and her discussions with others in figuring out what happened were used in a manslaughter case brought against her (she was found guilty in 2015). Last summer the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service decided to suspend her, not strike her off; the General Medical Council was unhappy with that and went to court to get that overturned, and just succeeded (hence a bunch of news). Folks are saying this is going to seriously screw up medical training in the UK.

• "Bawa-Garba: timeline of a case that has rocked medicine". Pulse Today. 25 January 2018. (see slew of article down left side of page)
• "Medics rally behind struck off doctor". BBC News. 2018.
• Ward, Victoria (28 January 2018). "More than 7,500 doctors warn they will be too scared to admit mistakes after pediatrician is struck off". The Telegraph.
• Dyer, Clare (29 January 2018). "Bawa-Garba case has left profession shaken and stirred". BMJ: k456. doi:10.1136/bmj.k456.
• Cohen, Deborah (29 November 2017). "Back to blame: the Bawa-Garba case and the patient safety agenda". BMJ: j5534. doi:10.1136/bmj.j5534.
• Badshah, Nadeem (2018). "Doctors back paediatrician struck off for fatal mistake". The Times.

tons more... Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the headlines, and so far it feels like one of those flash-in-the-pan things – here this month, fading next month, barely mentioned a year from now. So I'm feeling like no actual notability, but maybe worth a mention somewhere (e.g., in a Patient safety article, to talk about the fear of admitting that you made a mistake). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not related to notability, but does anyone else think it's insane that a resident was "the most senior doctor covering the CAU, the emergency department and the ward CAU that day"? Natureium (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A notable medical incident. Article should be about the incident rather than the person in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Her case has had lots of coverage, and that coverage has been at several different times (during the manslaughter case, the MPTS decision and now the new case). Definitely seems notable to me. I agree that the article should be about the incident rather than the person, but the case is generally known under her name. So, something like Hadiza Bawa-Garba case? Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

agree as well, about the incident--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

As a starting point, here's some more in-depth coverage of the case and its significance: [20]. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We have articles on other cases such as this one Terri Schiavo case Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

In the other cases I've seen, it's the name of the patient. I hadn't come across one with the name of the healthcare professional. It's also arguably not a case, but three separate, but related legal cases. Anyway, not bothered either way.

If someone does create an article, I've taken a picture of the front cover of the latest issues of the BMJ, which is about Bawa-Garba. It's presumably (c) BMJ, but would be allowed on a relevant article, I think. Bondegezou (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should be having an article on her. She is now a cause célèbre in UK medicine as her ordeal has been discussed widely in national news sources. Agree with Jytdog and Bondegezou. Definitely not "flash in the pan". JFW | T@lk 15:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have created something at Hadiza Bawa-Garba case (with redirects from Jack Adcock, Jack Adcock case and Isabel Amaro). It's just a start. Please come and improve. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the case is notable. I have created a redirect from "Hadiza Bawa-Garba". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane profile in The Signpost

• Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

by WikiProject Medicine's own JenOttawa

I encourage everyone to check this out - the Cochrane partnership is a precedent by means of which any of us can encourage other organizations, universities, etc to have their staff and community base develop Wikipedia's medical content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[21]very well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This IMO has been our most effective collaboration to date. Agree with Blue about others basing future practice on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bilastine

There have been some recent large additions to bilastine from a new user. The article could probably benefit from review by someone from this project. 108.16.196.194 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch. Special:Contributions/Labeaga looks sketchy indeed. --Treetear (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Did some initial trimming of primary sources. As it is not sold in the US less is avaliable. Will need to get home before I can work on it more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Lyme_disease#Transmission

Further thoughts here appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on Talk:Pneumonia Comment

Pneumonis Wedge

I noticed this edit request on Talk:Pneumonia regarding "health-care related pneumonia" as a classification. Does anyone know where to find a source to substantiate it?

Link to edit request (from an IP) Talk:Pneumonia#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_6_February_2018

Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

per WHO.int/2016[22]am not seeing it(makes any difference)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Soupvector and Ozzie10aaaa for looking into this. SoupVector replied on the talk page JenOttawa (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hymenotomy vs. hymenectomy

With this edit, Barbara (WVS) redirected "hymenotomy" to the Hymenectomy article she created. Anyone have any good sources that distinguish these terms or use them interchangeably? I did look around on the Internet. This 2015 "Atlas of Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 943, states, "Hymenectomy should be more accurately named partial hymenectomy, or hymenotomy." Other sources also state "hymenotomy or hymenectomy" or "hymenectomy/hymenotomy," as seen seen with this 2012 "Atlas of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology" source, from JP Medical Ltd, page 41, and this 2008 "The 5-minute Obstetrics and Gynecology Consult" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 117.

Whatever the case, I think that the page history of the previous article should be merged with the new article, which I will later seek to have happen. The Hymenotomy article could have simply been moved to "Hymenectomy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Per this and this, the Hymenectomy article currently doesn't exist. But Barbara (WVS) plans to recreate it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

According to ICD-9, Hymenotomy is 70.11 and Hymenectomy is 70.31. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if they're technically different, it might make sense to cover them in the same article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Entirely possible. I just wanted to point out a reliable source for them not being exact synonyms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda

About time, this article is having edit warring and clueless editing once again. Present disputes involves PaleoNeonate. While two of us have opposed any changes to lead, I am not sure about PaleoNeonate's position, however Zefr's treatment of this article like some typical 20th or 21st century pseudo-science is objectionable just like his edit warring. It also seems that he has misrepresented conclusion of this source.

Anyway, the article concerns not only the medicine, which happens to be an ancient one, not the modern one, but it also concerns Hinduism, and that is how the lead has been designed and remains stable for years after contributions of many editors. I would like opinion of other editors, because as of now, even other related articles like Traditional Chinese medicine, Traditional African medicine, etc. provide similar insight on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I got pinged above[23] due to my involvement but my name is not appearing.

I have to agree that the present lead is simply cherrypicking and doesn't go well with the WP:LEAD, which said lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Zefr has made a few other incorrect edits than lead though. The source has been also misrepresented, "pseudoscience" is not supported by source linked above although the previous version supported it [24] but it also gave some weight to protoscience and trans-science. Ayurveda is not a new medicine and I also have to agree that we would need to check other articles of ancient alternative medicines as well to make sure if they should also cherry pick like this, but this proposal sounds doesn't seem good at all and violates WP:LEAD. Anmolbhat (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is probably better discussed at WP:FT/N. Note discretionary sanctions and extra special restrictions apply to editing this article; the personal attacks above are probably already well into the sanctionable zone. I note there was already an extensive discussion about the pseudoscience question. Alexbrn (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was to include the whole sentence of the Oxford book which also included mention of protoscience and trans-science according to the discussion you have linked.[25] Not only that but entire lead is being changed without consensus and that is also covered by the sanctions and the larger issue is if such edits are justified because lead should not be reduced to make claims about its modern medical concepts but the whole subject. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The closer's comment was "Consensus is that Ayurveda's status as pseudoscientific is well documented enough that it does not need to be ascribed to a particular source or sources". If you have complaints about editor behaviour, take them to WP:AIN or request WP:AE, as they won't get resolved here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see this discussion? Also the numerous discussions and RFCs of this archive shows agreement of most editors that "ancient Ayurveda can't be accused of pseudoscience". I don't have complaints yet but we need to make sure that this dispute is resolved and what other editors think about this issue. Anmolbhat (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's clear from the history of discussion about the Ayurveda article, particularly its recent lede revisions, that numerous editors want a change to state the conspicuous pseudoscience nature of Ayurveda, as borne out by the NCCIH source which should be a main guide per WP:COPO. The current lede, and these arguments that the lede cannot be edited because it has existed that way for years, is clearly WP:OWN and completely unconstructive. Taking a fresh objective view, the lede and article are overloaded with specific Ayurveda history, contain misinformation, weak sources, quackery opinions, and violate COPO for neutrality, verifiability, and original research. Capitals00 and Anmolbhat have shown no willingness for collaboration or discussion. The article is now locked until Feb 21, giving time for discussion among those willing to improve a low-quality C-class article. --Zefr (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Previously you were saying that you cut down lead because it looked big to you,[26] and because none of those explanations helped, you have invented these non-existing issues, indirectly claiming that everyone has caused disruption on lead to this day. I have replied everytime, and also opened this thread. You talk about class, but your edits are only going to degrade the class (read criteria(s) of GA) of the article and contradict NPOV even if our aim should be to focus on finding faults in Ayurveda as modern medicine and ignoring all its history. We can't minimize its scope just because you want us to do that. Also it is rid of misrepresentation of sources unlike your preferred version. You have not provided any evidence how the lead misleads anyone. The lead is correct and covers all the aspects of the article and it has been written according to the WP:LEAD policy and should continue to do so. Capitals00 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me, tangentially, that Wikipedia still needs articles on Trans-science, Non-science, and Pre-science. Maybe someone interested in philosophy would be the right person to create them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

List of questionable diseases

Is this list intended to contain Culture-bound syndromes? Someone added Koro, and I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not. Natureium (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting, but potentially problematic article. By their nature, many of these are contentious and debated. I've just removed multiple entries with no citation given. Many of the citations that are given do not meet MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There are different purposes for RS/MEDRS. We need sources that can reliably say that these conditions are pseudoscientific, not to give health information. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we'd need sources, but I'm not sure that "questionable" is the same thing as "pseudoscientific". If you mean for the article to contain only pseudoscientific diseases, then it should be renamed. A list of "questionable" diseases ought to include classifications that are scientifically disagreed with (e.g., is X actually "a disease", or is it two or three of them? Is X a separate disease, or is this just part of Big Disease?).

On a related point, why is List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments restricted to altmed? Why isn't, e.g., the disproven use of bone marrow transplants to treat breast cancer, in that list? For a while, the breast cancer lobby had pushed through laws in multiple US states to require some health insurance programs to pay for that discredited treatment approach, and some individual patients won millions of dollars in lawsuits against their science-based health insurance plans. It is certainly a "disproven treatment" for that cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I remember Koro is defined as a culture bound syndrome in the DSM 5. But do not have my copy in front of me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess, WP:SYNTHy and frequently failing WP:MEDRS. I've written about this on the Talk page at Talk:List_of_questionable_diseases#A_mess. This is contentious content that throws together diverse things, from fan death to non-celiac gluten sensitivity, as if they're similar. MEDRS clearly should apply for some of it, but much of the article is sourced to popular media. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"questionable" seems too vague of a term - may want change it to a list of "pseudoscientific" diseases. "questionable" diseases ought to include classifications that are scientifically disagreed with (e.g., is X actually "a disease", or is it two or three of them? Is X a separate disease, or is this just part of Big Disease?). is a little vague for a list IMO, and currently the list is of pseudoscientific diseases anyhow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of it is pseudoscientific; some of it isn't. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Persistent genital arousal disorder

As seen at Talk:Persistent genital arousal disorder#Proposed deletion? (a permalink here), Barbara (WVS) wants to delete Persistent genital arousal disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Like I stated at the article's talk page, a disorder being rare/unusual doesn't mean that it's not WP:Notable. There are enough academic sources covering this topic, and that includes tertiary book sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourced and expanded with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Dietary supplement article downgraded from B- to C-class

Dietary supplement

I took it upon myself to downgrade the Dietary supplement article from B-class to C-class because in my opinion so much of it was incomplete, incoherent, off-topic, under-referenced, etc. I have since been editing the article. Anyone else wants to get involved - great. I have no intention of "owning" this article. At some point the collective changes may warrant upgrading to B-class. I do not intend to make that decision, as I am too close to the topic. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for boldly changing it. At a very brief glance, I think it could go either way, so I'm happy to have the decision made be someone who's taken more than a very brief glance at the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW: I think you've done a good job revising this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

agree, substantial amount of work[27]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Class edits right now

Hello, for the next hour there is a class editing some health articles. If anyone likes, would you check out their edits? See "editors" and from their the edit history.

• class list

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this Lane. Do you want me to add it to our medical-editing page? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Classes_editing JenOttawa (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@JenOttawa: Thanks for adding this. Please also see Category:WikiProject Medicine meetups, which could be better sorted in that "classes editing" page to categorize venues, topics, and help with the event count. I still lots of events in that category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

edit request

• I posted an edit on the Parkinson's disease talk page under Management > rehabilitation. Can someone please review it?

Aryehmann Feb 5, 2018Aryehmann (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

commented on one of the requests JenOttawa (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I posted an edit on Stroke page under Management > Rehabilitation. Can someone please read, review, and make it live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhaynes2 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

done by Zefr--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I posted a request on Concussion page under the treatment subheading can we have someone review it? User: Dakotach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakotach (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

answered this one[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New article - Vaginal trauma

I'm not sure what the process should be to bring an article to the attention of this WikiProject: if this is not the appropriate place, please point me in the right direction. I came across this article while checking new pages. The editor has obviously put some effort into it, but it really looks like it would benefit from some expert attention. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gronk Oz. This is the correct place to post. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hemophilia and factor 8

Your article denying that hepc cannot be transmitted by blood transfusion is totally erroneous which can be easily proved if you had checked. Are the Hemophiliac society one of your big donations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.69.192 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to alert us of your concerns. HCV can certainly be transmitted by blood transfusion (if the donor has HCV). Unsafe transfusion/injection remains a major cause of HCV transmission worldwide; in regions with strong controls in blood banks, the risk of HCV transmission is approximately zero - recombinant clotting factor preparations have zero risk of transmitting HCV when they include no human blood products. So - it's somewhat complicated. Could you point to the article and passage about which you're concerned? — soupvector (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification: m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource

This grant proposal on meta is open for endorsements, and for comments on the Talk page there.

It has been put together with the help of input from medical editors. There are a number of different sides to the proposal: but the main stated objective is to get the essential content of the WP:MEDRS guideline under greater control, in the sense of better checking of referencing using automation. That idea depends on Wikidata; on the surge in 2017 in the holdings there of information on research papers; and the possibility of building up further important information on papers, now there a place to put it.

It is not at all intended to diminish human contributions to the referencing process. And as I said in Montreal, at the Medicine Day, experts in this area are needed, since the aim is better quality medical content. Please consider supporting the proposal.

I'd be happy to discuss details. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

commented(please do so as well)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work with this proposal! JenOttawa (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Malacidin

Malacidin

This article is now nominated for being featured in the news. Maybe people at this project will care to look at the article and comment at the ITN discussion. Iselilja (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. But this is all based on a primary research article. Don't we not allow that? Natureium (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged the biomedical claims as needing secondary, MEDRS, sources. I'm tempted to request deletion as the content of an article is required to be mainly based on secondary sources, especially as it also seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe leave it for a while and see if the secondary sources emerge. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I recommend the article be deleted. There are no publications in PubMed literature. It is a newly coined term evolved from news hype, with the article having been started just today; WP:NOTNEWS. There's no scientific consensus that the 'antiobiotic' properties actually exist. One contributor to the new article is a WP admin, Masem. --Zefr (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Antibiotic properties of this substance, at least in a petri dish probably exists, but of course this needs to be confirmed by an independent research group. Human clinical trials are not necessary to prove antibiotic properties. Those properties are real and totally independent of whether they have been tested in humans or not. Trials are only needed to prove that the antibiotic is safe and effective in humans. Boghog (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

These natural products produced by microbes to kill other microbes is notable quite independent of any potential medical use. Hence at least parts of this article fall outside of the scope of MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there will be secondary sources for a while. I'm honestly not sure why this specific discovery has people so excited. Natureium (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Multi drug resistance bacteria is a major problem. If confirmed and shown effective and safe in humans, the discovery discovery of new class of antibiotics is important. While the excitement is premature, it is clearly understandable. Boghog (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Since pinged; at this point, we have research from a Nature Microbiology peer-reviewed article, so we have a MEDRS source as I read that page. While the ultimate goal of the research is to find improved antibotics for human psychology, they are not yet at a point to say these can work in humans, only that tests on rats show preliminary positive results with certain types of drug-resistant organisms. --Masem (t) 19:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A peer reviewed article isn't enough for MEDRS. It's supposed to be a secondary source. It's basically the opposite of actually doing scientific research.

And antibiotics for human psychology? Am I missing something? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant physiology, my bad. :P

And given the state of the various articles listed under List of antibiotics, it would only seem reasonable in time that as long as the scientific community (in this case, via the peer-review of Nature MB) agreed these are a new set of antibiotics, just yet not having any type of drug-use approval, that we'd end up with a page about them at some point. There's mainstream coverage of the importance of the discovery but no one is calling on it as approved medicine or the like (which is absolutely where we'd need to be careful per MEDRS and where we'd need the MEDRS-meeting secondary sources to make such claims). And even then, there's potential to merge this content to daptomycin, the closest existing relative family. So deletion just because we have one peer-reviewed journal article and coverage seems improper. --Masem (t) 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The new article is based on one report published yesterday, and two news reports. Common sense indicates this is not yet scientifically notable, WP:N, or confirmed, and needs verification by additional secondary sources per WP:DUE. If it were an article about a person with so little notability support, we'd certainly be deleting it. --Zefr (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The discovery of a new class of antibiotics is clearly notable. Whether these antibiotics have clinical application is a another story. Because of underfunding of antibiotics research, it is not clear that these will ever be tested in humans. To reiterate, successful human clinical trials is not a prerequisite for notability. Bugs killing other bugs with with a newly discovered class of natural products is notable and is outside the scope of MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

yep, agree(w/ Boghog)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• this is what i wrote at the ITN and at the article - the "excitement" here is exactly because we need new classes of chemistry for antibiotic drugs. It is kind of interesting from the standpoint of how some bacteria try to kill other kinds, but nobody really cares about that. The excitement is about the medical potential and the scariness of the "post antibiotic apocalypse" (actual phrase from the Independent article). And part of why MEDRS matters is keeping out all kinds of preliminary hype, be that from pharma or medical device shillers, or snake oil sales people, or this kind of hype. Wikipeida's mission is to present articles that summarize accepted knowledge, not to be vehicle for hype. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I've started a discussion at WT:MEDRS related to how MEDRS should apply to microbiology vs biomedical topics. --Masem (t) 16:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine

Influenza vaccine shot

above article might need update[29]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup I get mine every year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I get mine every year so I can keep my job... Natureium (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe every fall, we should start a thread to ask each other whether we've gotten ours yet. I get one every year, of course, as I'm sure most science-oriented editors do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you not get asked by enough people already? Natureium (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wait, the celebrations really begin when you can get the shingles and pneumonia vaccines. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane published updates on three of their vaccine reviews late last week.

Healthy adults: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6/abstract

Healthy children: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub5/abstract

Elderly: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub4/abstract

I am interested in hearing your thoughts and how we can use these in the WP article. I posted these on the talk page as well.

Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

commented[31]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ref bombing editor

User:Mrbigtoe seems to only edit medical articles to add references to papers by one group of authors. I don't know if there's a specific rule this is against, but it seems spammy. Can something be done about this, or is it not explicitly banned? Natureium (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:REFSPAM and WP:SELFCITE... will reach out to them, i have a kind of standard message i give people for this.Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very common. Often the ref does not support the content in question either... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Natureium (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Atkins diet effectiveness

Some difference of opinion about how to present this.[32] More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

commented[33]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Estrus in humans, and estrous cycle vs. menstrual cycle

The literature is clear that human females do not have estrus and that they have a menstrual cycle rather than an estrous cycle. However, there is currently talk at Talk:Human sexuality#Human estrus (permalink here) about a few sources using the term estrus in relation to human females and questioning whether human females might have estrus after all. An editor wants to know how best to include this material. I suggested adding it to the Estrous cycle article from the evolutionary viewpoint and noting that human females once had estrus, lost it, and that some researchers believe that human females still have it. But content the editor added to the Human sexuality article (content that has been reverted) fits best in our featured Menstrual cycle article and/or the Ovulation article. In fact, as seen at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous and the section below it, we had a 2016 class looking to add sexual arousal and sexual behavior content in relation to the menstrual cycle to Wikipedia. They had settled on adding it to the Menstrual cycle article, but Doc James removed it.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This was nearly a year ago now.

I moved the content to the users talk page[34]

And raised a number of concerns. My hope was they would work on it more. It is an interesting topic. Will see about writing something better referenced

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just discovered that they did improve the content in question :-)

It is here User:BF2510/sandbox Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay merged it here Menstrual_cycle#Mate_choice. People of course are welcome to work on it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. Adams1peace, as you can see above, Doc James has covered the topic at the Menstrual cycle article. The content doesn't speak of estrus, but, per what I've stated above and at the Human sexuality talk page, I don't think it should. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it is well known that behavior changes some in different parts of the cycle I have never heard of it called estrous in humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I noted at Talk:Estrous cycle#Human female sexual receptive behaviour in estrous that although "estrus" is not usually attributed to humans, "there are researchers, especially the evolutionary biologist type, like Randy Thornhill, who "argue that women have not lost estrus." The content you added is also largely based on a Randy Thornhill source, in which one chapter is titled "Women's Estrus, Pair Bonding and Extra-Pair Sex." Given that Thornhill's research and beliefs are not always widely supported by others and that evolutionary biologists sometimes have theories that do not have solid evidence supporting them, I am not comfortable with the text relying so much on Thornhill or other evolutionary biologist research. There is no indication that all of this research is strong. So as seen here (followup edit here), I tweaked the text so that it doesn't seem so universal/definitive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2018‎ (UTC)

Great thanks User:Flyer22 Reborn Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: The lead sentence of the Sex article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sex#Which lead sentence should we go with?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)