[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 219: Line 219:


Alternatively, if you feel a bit more Grinch-like (perfectly valid POV, and one I inhabit regularly), then now's a good time to see what articles can be merged up. It's seemed to me that there's a good argument for turning many of our [[Alice Expert]] articles into various lists of experts/lists of people from particular places. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you feel a bit more Grinch-like (perfectly valid POV, and one I inhabit regularly), then now's a good time to see what articles can be merged up. It's seemed to me that there's a good argument for turning many of our [[Alice Expert]] articles into various lists of experts/lists of people from particular places. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

== Plans for RfC about drug pricing ==

An RfC about price information in drug articles is being planned at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles]]. Interested editors are strongly encouraged to participate in the planning discussion, because that discussion will determine what shape the RfC will take. Thanks. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:09, 3 January 2020

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

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

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

    List of archives


    What defines "alcohol poisoning"?

    Ethanol binding to GABAA receptor

    I've become involved in a discussion with another editor on the article Alcohol intoxication, concerning the distinction (if any) between alcohol intoxication and alcohol poisoning. The article currently begins "Alcohol intoxication, also known as drunkenness or alcohol poisoning .. ", citing a source which does not seem to back up the claimed equivalence between inebriation / drunkenness and poisoning. A talk page discussion is under way. Comments welcome. FrankP (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Review required for this edit.

    Could you guys help review this edit to see if it complies with the standard of WP:MEDANIMAL and Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS?? This is beyond my knowledge. Thanks. --Envisaging tier (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks User:Envisaging tier I have trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely amazing, thank you for the time, effort, and sharing your knowledge and experience with all of us so the next generation has the knowledge to pass it on, making Wikipedia alive forever. --Envisaging tier (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is hypoperfusion referring to shock, or ischemia?

    Please join the discussion at Talk:Hypoperfusion. Thanks! --Envisaging tier (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the knowledge you've imparted! --Envisaging tier (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request - MEDRS competent editor

    Can someone with a bit more experience than I with WP:MEDRS check this addition to IPMN, please? [1]

    I'm happy to fix the citation and remove the {{medical citation needed}} if all is ok. It's the edit tag more than anything that is suspect to me.

    Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, Little pob (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy second day of Christmas to you, too.  :-)
    If another citation in the lead were wanted (it is not "needed"), that particular sentence would probably be best supported by a medical textbook rather than a case series. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Genetics dispute

    There is a thread here at NORN that could probably use input from users with a medical/genetics background. GMGtalk 11:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    We've always been good at cleaning up links to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages when the DAB folks bring them around. Today, I thought we might get ahead of them by seeing how many we can clear out. There aren't too many here. If you've never tried this before, it's usually pretty easy. Just go to the page, find the little blue thing that says [disambiguation needed], figure out which article it ought to link to, and fix the link. Remove the {{dab}} template, and then come back here to mark the item {{done}}. If you find a tough one, then let's talk about it, and maybe we'll be able to puzzle it out together. It's really that easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for post WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems rather inappropriate that Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia redirects to Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia type 1

    ... given that there's much more than 1 autosomal recessive form of cerebellar ataxia (e.g., the form stated in CA8 among many others). The former page should be converted into a set index article with redlinks IMO. Wondering what others think. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone will have to do the legwork, but good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but you know how I am with downloadable datasets and big lists. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Converted the page to an SIA a few moments ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is from the orphanet classification for the group of disorders (Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia ORPHA:1172 - w/ all subcategories fully expanded), which should reflect this review:

    1. Autosomal recessive ataxia, Beauce type (this entry is Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia type 1)
    2. Autosomal recessive cerebelloparenchymal disorder type 3
    3. Dysequilibrium syndrome
    4. CAMOS syndrome
    5. Cerebellar ataxia, Cayman type
    6. Joubert syndrome with oculorenal defect
    7. Joubert syndrome
    8. Joubert syndrome with hepatic defect
    9. Orofaciodigital syndrome type 6
    10. Joubert syndrome with ocular defect
    11. Joubert syndrome with renal defect
    12. Joubert syndrome with Jeune asphyxiating thoracic dystrophy
    13. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia due to CWF19L1 deficiency
    14. Congenital cerebellar ataxia due to RNU12 mutation
    15. Ataxia with vitamin E deficiency
    16. Abetalipoproteinemia
    17. Refsum disease
    18. Cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis
    19. Infantile Refsum disease
    20. Recessive mitochondrial ataxia syndrome
    21. Autosomal recessive ataxia due to PEX10 deficiency
    22. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia with late-onset spasticity
    23. Autosomal recessive congenital cerebellar ataxia due to MGLUR1 deficiency
    24. Autosomal recessive congenital cerebellar ataxia due to GRID2 deficiency
    25. Ataxia-telangiectasia
    26. Ataxia-oculomotor apraxia type 1
    27. Spinocerebellar ataxia with axonal neuropathy type 2
    28. Spinocerebellar ataxia with axonal neuropathy type 1
    29. Xeroderma pigmentosum-Cockayne syndrome complex
    30. Ataxia-telangiectasia-like disorder
    31. Xeroderma pigmentosum
    32. RIDDLE syndrome
    33. Friedreich ataxia
    34. Early-onset cerebellar ataxia with retained tendon reflexes
    35. Infantile onset spinocerebellar ataxia
    36. Marinesco-Sjögren syndrome
    37. Congenital cataracts-facial dysmorphism-neuropathy syndrome
    38. Posterior column ataxia-retinitis pigmentosa syndrome
    39. Early-onset progressive encephalopathy-spastic ataxia-distal spinal muscular atrophy syndrome
    40. Autosomal recessive spinocerebellar ataxia-blindness-deafness syndrome, aka spinocerebellar ataxia, autosomal recessive 3 (SCAR3) - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
    41. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-saccadic intrusion syndrome
    42. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-psychomotor delay syndrome
    43. Ataxia-oculomotor apraxia type 4
    44. Gemignani syndrome, aka spinocerebellar ataxia-amyotrophy-deafness syndrome - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
    45. Cerebellar ataxia with neuropathy and bilateral vestibular areflexia syndrome
    46. Acute infantile liver failure-cerebellar ataxia-peripheral sensory motor neuropathy syndrome, aka spinocerebellar ataxia, autosomal recessive 21 (SCAR21) - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
    47. Autosomal recessive ataxia due to ubiquinone deficiency
    48. Adult-onset autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia
    49. Childhood-onset autosomal recessive slowly progressive spinocerebellar ataxia
    50. Infantile-onset autosomal recessive nonprogressive cerebellar ataxia, aka spinocerebellar ataxia, autosomal recessive 6 (SCAR6) - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
    51. Spectrin-associated autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia
    52. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-epilepsy-intellectual disability syndrome due to WWOX deficiency
    53. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-epilepsy-intellectual disability syndrome due to TUD deficiency
    54. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-epilepsy-intellectual disability syndrome due to RUBCN deficiency
    55. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia due to STUB1 deficiency

    Facepalm Facepalm Entry number 3 for Dysequilibrium syndrome refers to 4 disorders but it's also a redirect from a general term (for this group: CAMRQ) to a specific subtype: CAMRQ1. Only recognized that because my CA8 deficiency example above causes CAMRQ3... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)   Fixed this entry. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No one objects to a SIA then? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Orphanet has its advantages and disadvantages. You might like to look at Spinal muscular atrophies or Hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy – will it make sense to turn Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia into such an article on a class of disorders? — kashmīrī TALK 11:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, that's what the page should be converted into. There's technically no structure restriction on an SIA though, so it could become a list article while remaining an SIA. I just don't have the time/interest to create a wikitable, look up the corresponding genes, and cite this many entries, so I just opted for the least time-consuming approach. The only reason I didn't use OMIM is that there were 184 entries linked. Orphanet includes 1 or more links to OMIM for its entries though, so it probably covered a good chunk of them. The 7 Joubert syndrome disorders in this list together encompassed like 30-40 OMIM entries. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update for memantine

    Memantine structure

    A more recent report from NICE is as follows. I hope members here could update memantine accordingly. I tried several times to paraphrase it but still not precise enough. Thanks.

    • Institute, National; (UK), Care Excellence (2019-12-28). "Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for dementia". NCBI Bookshelf. Retrieved 2019-12-28. 69.For people with an established diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease who are already taking an AChE inhibitor, primary care prescribers may start treatment with memantine (see recommendation 68) without taking advice from a specialist clinician.

    --Envisaging tier (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    here are more reviews on the subject[2], should anyone be interested--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --Envisaging tier (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone have access to this review?

    Resolved

    Bentham seems to be the only publisher of journal articles that can’t be pirated through sci-hub. My email is in the source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Might want to ask at WP:RX. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Thanks for reminding me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please apply for free access to paywalled medical sources

    This is your occasional reminder that https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ exists and will give you free, 100% legal access to all sorts of paywalled medical (and other) sources. https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ has the list. At the moment, ScienceDirect and a couple of others are waitlisted, but many others, including the Cochrane library, are waiting for you.

    The usual common-sense advice applies: Please sign up for (only) what you will (realistically) use. Please (try to) use whatever you sign up for. Please (try to) "share the wealth" by telling other editors what you have access to, if you're willing to look up sources and do quick verification checks for others (note that this does not mean e-mailing copies to other editors – they can sign up, too).

    WP:TWL also takes suggestions for other sources, and I encourage you to make your requests. Some publishers won't agree, but many simply haven't been asked yet. (Imagine a world in which most WPMED folks had online access to the best med school textbooks...)

    Finally, at least if you're in the US, I recommend that you find the website for your local library and figure out what online resources it offers. Although general libraries (especially small ones) often don't have medicine-specific sources, it is not unusual for editors to discover that you have free online access to a variety of reference works and newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for sharing this! JenOttawa (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Online access through your public library can work in the UK as well. Availability may be patchy - you can check if your local authority is a member of the Access To Research scheme. Also, most things require you to be on library premises rather than at home. But worth looking into. FrankP (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfD notification: Joint disease

    Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Joint disease would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    closed as keep[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Free bleeding

    The article on free bleeding makes no mention of the risk of bloodborne infectious diseases. I left a small example of the problem on the article talk page, but we need an expert to add the appropriate source and content. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    commented on talk/page[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transforaminal epidural

    Someone I know, in the United Kingdom, recently had what was described in their discharge letter as a "transforaminal epidural". As you can see, that's currently a red link. Is there something it can meaningfully redirect to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that must be through one of the many foramen. If it was in the spine, maybe it went through one of the Intervertebral foramen. Anything could have been injected, although it looks like steroids (for back pain) are not unusual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Epidural steroid injection?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just epidural; it’s a subtopic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've redirected to Epidural administration (to which Epidural already redirects); but that article does not contain the words "foramen" or "foraminal"; can someone see to that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Interventional radiology

    Could I get some extra eyes on this article. I went to fix a disambiguation on this page and got lost. It's undergone rapid expansion over the past 4 months from a group of new editors (most of which have received COI messages on their talk pages). From what I can see, the intent is to cover every aspect of IR in a single article with a list like format. Jytdog was moving a lot of unsourced material to the talk page. Ideally, I'd like to chop it down to something more manageable (e.g. the vertebral augmentation section which is poorly referenced could just be pointed at the main article). Any opinions are welcome, especially which MOS to choose. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added: much of the added content reads like a webpage rather than an encyclopedia,

    "In addition to your normal liver tissue, your liver has three main vessels traversing it: arteries, veins and bile ducts. While bile is made in your liver and stored in your gallbladder, the bile will eventually pass into your GI tract through your hepatic, cystic and common bile ducts. Any condition that prevents the normal flow of bile from your liver, through these bile vessels and into your GI tract can cause a condition called jaundice."

    with a single source. Ian Furst (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Biliary intervention" section looks like it was copy-pasted from a patient information leaflet. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the newer stuff has the same vibe. I think I'll just mimic the radiology layout which looks clean. Ian Furst (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Figured some of you might be interested

    It’s about one of the bioinformatic tools developed during Undiagnosed-1. [5]

    Still blows my mind how a 2-3-day collaborative programming event actually led to a diagnosis when so many doctors before it couldn’t figure it out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Video demonstration of surgeon's knots

    There's a discussion at Talk:Surgeon's knot#You-tube videos that I think would benefit from a few interested editors. I think the goal ought to be to find the best available video for the ==External links== section, not just to accept/reject the original suggestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Six millionth article

    The English Wikipedia is nearing the milestone of Wikipedia:Six million articles. If you have been planning one for a while, now might be a good time to get to work on it. I've got some notes about Early sports specialization and the resulting health problems (like Tommy John surgery happening mostly in teenagers these days), if anyone happens to be interested in that subject.

    Alternatively, if you feel a bit more Grinch-like (perfectly valid POV, and one I inhabit regularly), then now's a good time to see what articles can be merged up. It's seemed to me that there's a good argument for turning many of our Alice Expert articles into various lists of experts/lists of people from particular places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Plans for RfC about drug pricing

    An RfC about price information in drug articles is being planned at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Interested editors are strongly encouraged to participate in the planning discussion, because that discussion will determine what shape the RfC will take. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=933948687"