Edit with VisualEditor

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

As per the heading: the July/August 2024 Print Edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) used a WikiCommons picture of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Does any one happen to know User:CoRus13? (He doesn't seem to be around much. I wonder whether he knows the CMAJ liked his image enough to use it.)

Note: The article was published electronically in February.

Nephron  T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will check out their website, but my very first guess is that this is a fake journal to churn papers. We see this all the time from companies that invite even the least experienced folks to publish. Hate to speculate, but this is in line with the practices of such pseudo journals. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is old enough that it's unlikely to be a fake journal. Regional journals aren't usually prestigious, but most countries have a medical association that publishes papers of interest to the practitioners in that country. The big journals may not want to run a "Prevalence of common cold in Ruritanian Kindergartens" article, but the Ruritanian Medical Association might think it an excellent piece for their little journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS - CMAJ previously used one of my images of diffuse alveolar damage on the cover (for an article about ARDS in July 2021)... and violated the terms of use. (I saw the image when it was published. They ended-up publishing a correction.) Nephron  T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EmailUser/CoRus13 might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to improve the page Mixed connective tissue disease and I've ran into a bit of an issue. For context Mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) has 4 different sets of diagnostic/classification criteria. Usually when I add in classification or diagnostic criteria for a disorder I'll just re word it a bit. The issue is that the diagnostic criteria for MCTD is so specefic that it's hard to reword it without losing meaning. I'm not super familiar with the details of copyright rules but I believe some of this falls under WP:LIMITED. If someone could check out the classification section of my draft for the artcle (User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath/sandbox3) and let me know if what I have is appropriate, that would be much appreciated. I also used an open access article for the diagnostic criteria (link) so I think it would also be okay to leave the text the same and put in an attribution template but I'm not fully sure if that's needed or what the logistics of that are. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic criteria are not copyrightable. Only the expression of a work is protected, not the contents. It would be perfectly acceptable to publish the criteria exactly as worded. In fact, re-wording the criteria could be injurious to the article and its readers.

I haven’t reviewed your article, but in many cases, such criteria are presented in table format—or it’s much more convenient to do so. Thus, if you haven’t already, I suggest word-for-word content in a table. Hope this helps!

Of course, I welcome input from senior/other editors. Gobucks821 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I decided not to go with a table as I couldn't find a way to format it in a way I liked however the information is presented in a way that could be easily put into a table if anyone chooses to do so!CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright question is very much "it depends". Copyright applies to expressions but not to facts. If there's only one way to express a given fact (e.g., "≥40 mcg/dL" or "has low back pain"), then it's not copyrightable.

When the diagnostic criterion is just a number or other simple fact, then copyright is not a significant concern. When the criteria are expressed as complex sentences/paragraphs (e.g., anything in the DSM), then we always need to re-write them in our own words. The complicated moment is when it's somewhere in between the two extremes. The dividing line between "just simple enough to not be copyrightable" and "just complex enough to require re-writing" is not always clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Letby, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. NebY (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per [1] other relevant Wikiprojects that should be notified as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Talk:Vasculitis#Signs_and_symptoms and I would appreciate input from this wikiproject!CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world has nobody actually noticed that the current page for Medical Collaboration of the Month hasn't been updated for 3 years now? Did nobody bother? Mox Eden (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it hasn't been properly maintained since 2009 when Jfdwolff stepped down from it. Perhaps the process was formalized too much that no one dared. Feel free to change it, I don't think the nomination page should be considered essential if it only means it isn't updated. CFCF (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Nevermind, draft was accepted:D I you still have any feedback though feel free to add it to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw that there was a page of intersex-related redlinks including intersex healthcare since the intersex medical intervention page focuses mostly on intersex children. I whipped up a draft but I've never made such a hefty article from scratch (especially not a medical related article) so I'd appreciate some gentle feedback. Here's the draft. Thanks. P.S. feel free to add stuff if you happen to be knowledgeable about this subject.

Urchincrawler (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to the full text of PMID 27289303 in The Lancet Psychiatry? This is for Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles? where the article is claimed to be the only source about suicide-related content warnings on news/media (though this isn't evident from the abstract) and that it either says the evidence is "unclear" or that it's a "fact" that they don't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mail me. CFCF (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW thar review does not mention content warnings in any way, shape, or form. It refers to media depictions of suicide and to hotlines, but not to content warnings or disclaimers. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos, I did not realize you were active again (just when I'm not)! Hooray and welcome back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off and on (more off than on lately...) but boy, am I glad to see you :-) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to get my article approved for publication (this is my first time working on an article for wikipedia). I was hoping you could help me identify (and possibly fix) my mistakes. DEF2051 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see:

• https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:Jansen_deVries_syndrome&url= copy vio
• MEDRS https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS%3F
• MEDMOS https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles

(BTW per the copyvio which indicates https://jansen-devries.org/about-jdvs/ might you have a https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest)

...though it is notable per https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/653767 and https://www.omim.org/entry/617450, you may want to start over (slowly) and then submit...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Tribulus terrestris regarding the evaluation of a small systematic review & how to include its findings in the article. The thread is Male sexual performance. The discussion is about the topic Tribulus terrestris. Thank you.

A IP editor posted a study about the efficacy and safety of Tribulus terrestris. I responded that we avoid primary sources. I also found a systematic review concerning dietary supplements for erectile dysfunction. Since this out of my league, I am requesting help in some WikiProjects where this be more apropos. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CRAM diet article describes an (apparently) medical dietary treatment for diarrhea and gastroenteritis. The sources for it are terrible. We've had the article for 14 years, and it's been flagged as poorly sourced the entire time. I can't find any worthwhile references to add (but this is very far from my field of knowledge). Can anyone find anything about it? What should we do with the article? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that might be a pediatrics thing. See also BRAT diet (Bananas, Rice, Applesauce, Toast). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. I cannot find any references. Jaredroach (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRAM diet -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing old edit requests and Talk:Grail_(company)#April_2024_COI_edit_requests has been open for a while. The first couple bullets here seem to fall squarely under WP:MEDRS - it seems like the company has some kind of controversial cancer detection test, and the COI editor wants to add a couple studies evaluating the test. Is anyone up for taking a look? Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposed rewrite at Talk:List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States#Proposal for a rework of page that may be of interest to this WikiProject. This rewrite is still a work in progress, so please feel free to share any suggestions, critiques, etc. at the aforementioned talk page or User talk:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite. TinglesFrickinMap (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TinglesFrickinMap, I think that User:TinglesFrickinMap/sandbox/United States foodborne illness outbreak list rewrite looks okay. My main suggestion is that you remove unnecessary details from the descriptions. This would probably include some of the exact dates and ways to identify which products were recalled. Knowing that products with this code or that best by date have been recalled is useful during the outbreak but basically trivia years later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was a resource for anatomy images assembled by SUNY Downstate Medical School called Human Anatomy Online (archive from 2016). Sadly, I was ignorant of its existence until I saw it referred to in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#External_links today. We even have a template {{SUNYAnatomyFigs}} transcluded on a few hundred pages that provides deadlinks to what I'm sure was a lovely resource. Does anyone know if this resource lives on under another name? I tried Googling, but didn't turn up anything. It'd be great if we could update the MEDMOS suggestion and fix the template. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20160504211300/http://ect.downstate.edu/courseware/haonline/acknow.htm has a list of names of people who might know. https://www.gold-standard.com/ might be the website for the publisher. One of the linked websites suggests learn gold-standard.com as a possible way to reach them, though if you can find them on a social media platform, that might be more effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WAID, I haven't reached out to those people yet. But I have checked about 5 dead links, and for each there's a version of the page archived in Internet Archive (example), and it's the type of static page that an archive can fully recapitulate. Unfortunately, the archives aren't all on the same date, so I can't rescue the template by just building an internet archive URL. My un-clever idea is that I could manually replace each templated instance with a link to an appropriate archived version, but that would take some time. Any chance you can think of a clever-er way to replace the links with the archived versions? You seem tech savvy. Ajpolino (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT all clever ways of linking to the Internet Archive begin with talking to GreenC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did this Special:Diff/827027496/1242311373 as a generic solution, imperfect but should mostly work. If you want to replace each template with an archive URL I can do that via bot, which is better since it will verify each archive is working and leave a {{dead link}} if not. But takes a little more work to setup and run. Post a request to WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 04:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Per usual, you've saved the day. I'll check a couple dozen instances this evening, and if it seems necessary I'll post at URLREQ. Ajpolino (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Eastern equine encephalitis#2024 Massachusetts outbreak. Any additional MEDRS-related tips appreciated there, for a new user who asked about this a the Teahouse. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two RFCs at Talk:Imane Khelif. Interested editors are invited to participate at Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead and Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead. TarnishedPath 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP is one of the Olympic athletes in Boxing at the 2024 Summer Olympics who has been the subject of speculation about whether she is intersex. As her private medical information appears to still be private, there is no medical content here, except perhaps to educate people on the difference between being trans and being intersex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created List of chronic pain syndromes. This is my first time creating a list class article and I would really appreciate some feedback. Additionally I was wondering if since not every entry has a wikilink (nor do I think it would be reasonable to make each entry one) should I have descriptions for each disorder? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good. It's a good idea to have links to "vocabulary words" (e.g., for anyone doing a 'Dr Google' search on a diagnosis) or an explanation, but when I look at the list of "Chronic visceral cancer pain, Chronic bone cancer pain, Chronic neuropathic cancer pain", I think people just need to know what viscera and neuropathy are. I don't think they need an explanation that says "Chronic bone cancer pain is when you have pain in your bones all the time because of cancer". They'll be able to guess that much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you for taking a look! I'll include the definitions for some of the medical terminology! (PS. I changed my username so thats why the signatures don't match) IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that our various lists of medical conditions have gotten out of date. Both List of genetic disorders and List of syndromes are inapropriately short considering their topics (many syndromes are missing). Our alphabetically sorted Lists of diseases is also in bad shape. Half the entries are syndromes (which I have also accidentally added syndromes to this list). Just looking at List of diseases (0–9), I don't think a single article on that list is a disease; all of them seem to be syndromes. There are also many duplications, redirects, and red links. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but I do have a couple of ideas. I could go through all the pages and sort them into their respective lists (either List of diseases, List of disorders, or List of syndromes. This would obviously be time-consuming but would hopefully help with organization and also help de-orphan some pages. I was wondering if anyone knows what was originally used as a source for these lists. Also, should ref links and redirects be removed? (Pinging page owners @Alex.tan, Snakeyes (usurped), Brainist, PierreAbbat, Altenmann, and Lee Daniel Crocker: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This diff from 2004 has a list of sources. As a general rule, if a list or glossary is that old, there's a decent chance that it came from a public domain source. The only exception I'm aware of is the List of skin conditions, which largely came out of a medical school textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I assumed they used either rarediseases or orphanet. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is exploring how to expand it's work on campaigns, to support other kinds of collaboration. We are interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

• Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: with this Google Form
• Share examples of Collaborations or WikiProjects that have worked for you: https://meta.wikimedia.org/key/Campaigns/WikiProjects

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MED folks. For 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning, is it fair to say the following:

• "symptoms of methanol toxicity include central nervous system depression"
• "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve."

The article is currently going through a FAC, and I am not a medical expert, so I'd appreciate any input from project members. Thank you! Ed  21:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17 I'm not a medical expert either, but I have edited a lot of medical articles so hopefully I can help a bit. Both of these setences are medical claims which means ideally they should have WP:MEDRS sources to back them up which it doesn't look like they do. As for the accuracy of the two statements, I'm not sure but I would feel more confident if they referanced a medical article. To sum up WP:MEDRS biomedical information, such as symptoms, have a higher standard for sources. This means that ideally the source should be secondary (liturature reviews, systematic reviews etc.), published in reputable journal, and if possible published in the last 10 years. The source used doesn't fit the standard of WP:MEDRS so do with that what you will. As for the wording "central nervous system depression" is a bit vaugue and overly technical. It might be more helpful to list symptoms. To save you the hassle of searching for MEDRS sources I found this article which might be helpful:

Nekoukar, Zahra; Zakariaei, Zakaria; Taghizadeh, Fatemeh; Musavi, Fatemeh; Banimostafavi, Elham Sadat; Sharifpour, Ali; Ghuchi, Nasrin Ebrahim; Fakhar, Mahdi; Tabaripour, Rabeeh; Safanavaei, Sepideh (2021). "Methanol poisoning as a new world challenge: A review". Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 66. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102445. ISSN 2049-0801.

This article is recent, from a repurable publisher and is a review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, IntentionallyDense! I rewrote that part of the article with that source you gave. I appreciate you not making me find a source myself. :-))) I was aware of MEDRS, but haven't had to interact with it before. I didn't realize it applied to what I thought of as basic things, like these symptoms. The wording of "central nervous system depression" was taken straight from the Wikipedia article title, and I've simplified it. Ed  04:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm glad I could help! IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a move request to Infected blood scandal in the United Kingdom; would appreciate any input from this WikiProject.

If anyone could also go through the article and check that the prose is appropriate for a medicine-related article and that the sources are MEDRS-compliant, I would be very grateful too. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This closed, with the page being moved to the proposed title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested. Nothing groundbreaking, but a good read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting read. I’ll have to give it another read through before forming any opinions but thanks for sharing this! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been playing with some page views numbers. One thing I've learned is that, based on a sample of 10K random articles, most articles on Wikipedia get read once a week or less.

I think that WPMED's core articles (e.g., about diseases and drugs) traffic tends to be higher than average. If you're interested in checking out a favorite article, you can get the total annual page views at https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/ (default is the last 20 days, so switch it to a full year), and here's a quick cheatsheet to compare the result against (these are all from the 2023 calendar year):

• 100K page views per year: top 1%
• 10K page views per year: top 5%
• 1K page views per year: top 20%
• 100 page views per year: top 40%

If you are interested in working on our most popular articles, then you can find an updated list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. For example, Polio vaccine was the 994th most popular WPMED-tagged page last month, and its page views during 2023 (283K) put it around the top third of a percent of all Wikipedia articles, but it's barely in the top 2% of WPMED articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse I get. But Fibular hemimelia? Scratches head. Bon courage (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this question belongs but I thought I pose it here. I would like to improve the page Adrenal fatigue however I'm running into a bit of an issue. Normally with an article about a disease people write about symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment etc. but when said disease doesn't exist should we be deviating from that format? I've found a number of reputable sources debunking adrenal fatigue however they don't always go into detail about symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment. I've also found two somewhat reliable sources that go into detail about the theories behind adrenal fatigue. However my other question is, does the fact that these articles support the existance of adrenal fatigue make them inherantly unreliable? Could these sources be used to say "the symptoms associated with adrenal fatigue are xyz" or "proposed treatment for adrenal fatigue includes xyz" (note I would also follow this up by talking about why those treatments don't work etc). The two sources that I'm not sure about are:

• Wilson, James L. (2014). "Clinical perspective on stress, cortisol and adrenal fatigue". Advances in Integrative Medicine. 1 (2): 93–96. doi:10.1016/j.aimed.2014.05.002.
• Redmer, Jacqueline (2018). "Adrenal Fatigue". Integrative Medicine. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-35868-2.00039-6. ISBN 978-0-323-35868-2.

They are both published by Elsevier and seem okay at first glance but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to use them. Any guidance on the topic is appreciated. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]