Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#fuch.27s endothelial dystrophy page oddity

We have an article on Dyskinetic cerebral palsy and an article on Athetoid cerebral palsy. But aren't they the same?

Should both be tagged with {{tl|Merge}}? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:It does seem like these are used synonymously in the medical literature. For some reason two articles were spawned during a redirect/article splitting event way back in 2010, and they were never reunited. I'm not sure which term should take precedence. It looks like "dyskinetic" is already used throughout the main cerebral palsy page -- should we stick with that? And in that case, based on the merge template instructions, I'll start a discussion on the dyskinetic cerebral palsy page? Aeffenberger (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Roseto effect}}

Apparently a term form an "effect" (whereby increased social cohesion increases population health in certain respects) which enjoyed a brief period of usage but which failed to gain traction having, so far as I can see, no WP:MEDRS.[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22roseto+effect%22&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=other.medline] An editor{{snd}}{{u|Ke4roh}}{{snd}}is keen to keep the article and has expanded and reverted content with general references so that now, as Wikipedia now says:

{{tq2|Although these studies do not directly examine Roseto, they support the plausibility of social cohesion as a protective factor for cardiovascular and general health}}

Would appreciate further views on whether there is sourcing for this, whether WP:NOR applies, whether it is viable as a topic, or whether this can be mentioned elsewhere if at all. (If sourcing can be found, for example, it might be mentioned briefly at Social determinants of health?) Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi all — I’ve opened a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roseto_effect#h-RFC:_Is_the_current_framing_and_sourcing_for_the_Roseto_Effect_article_appropria-20250509022300 Request for Comment] at Talk:Roseto effect about whether the article’s current framing and sourcing comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. The article presents a historically influential case study in social cohesion and cardiovascular health, with modern sourcing to frame its relevance and limitations.

Input from editors familiar with medical or sociological sourcing would be very welcome. Thanks! -- ke4roh (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• same topic as directly above?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello to all

I am an expert in mechanical ventilation (check-out Josef X Brunner on pubed) and tried to improve the Wikipedia page on Modes of mechanical ventilation. Unfortunately, an anonymous user eliminated my entries entirely three times accusing me of vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modes_of_mechanical_ventilation&action=history

I tried to get in touch with the person but to no avail.

Could someone please check the View History page and tell me how to proceed. I am seriously interested to put things into perspective, to elminate false information and add facts based on most recent literature and reports.

One example of a false contention is: Aptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is the only commercially available mode that uses optimal targeting. This information is incorrect and may mislead the public - and AI. There are many such optimal-targeting modes available on different devices from different manufacturers.

Thank you.

Josef Josef X Brunner (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to Wikipedia, and to this group. I hope you'll like the place and stick around. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia, which was originally written for medical experts.

:One of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modes_of_mechanical_ventilation&diff=prev&oldid=1233283856 your edit summaries] indicates that there were lawsuits involved in some of this in recent years. The IP is currently editing from the same general part of California as one of the litigants, so there's even a small chance that, like you, the IP also knows someone who was involved.

:I see you're already on the talk page, but I think our next step is to start a new discussion there that is specifically about the history. (Update: Please join me at Talk:Modes of mechanical ventilation#Lawsuits.)

:Also, I think it might help if we added some maintenance tags to the whole article. That can make it easier for people to see and agree on what needs doing. For example, many of the sources are too old for WP:MEDDATE, and it's my (non-expert) impression that there were substantial improvements in ventilation due to the COVID pandemic. It would IMO be ideal to have sources from the last five years for most of the medical/scientific parts of the article, even for facts that haven't changed recently. Our general preference is for textbooks, reference works, and review articles. I'll start doing that in a few minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::In the meantime, I checked some sources, in particular the lawsuit and it verified the claim. So I have reverted the ip's revert. Lova Falk (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::First of all: great to have a reply! Thank you for this.

::I agree that there were significant changes since the creation of the article. Lova Falk says that she has reverted the ip's revert. In the meantime, the IP has again reverted.

::What shall I do? Josef X Brunner (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You let us handle the IP. Let's talk about this more at Talk:Modes of mechanical ventilation#Lawsuits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Cancer Alley}}

Seems to be a spike of interest in this for US political reasons (?). Anyway, an editor is wanting to make changes and there is disagreement about use of primary sources, letters, WP:MDPI and sourcing standards in general. More eyes would be helpful! Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Opinions are wanted at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Does MEDRS apply to "further reading" on a medical topic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

At Transgender health care misinformation there currently is discussion about suitability of 2 sources [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116943] which discuss misinformation (false or misleading claims) around transgender health care. These are both published in [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-science-and-medicine Social Science & medicine] a journal which describes its subject areas as "Sociology and Political Science, Social Psychology, Health, Public Health and Health Policy, Development" as found [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-science-and-medicine/about/aims-and-scope here]. The journal is also found in Medline (although that doesn't confirm medrs status) Some editors are saying that these 2 sources are not MEDRS and therefore can not be used make claims about misinformation around biomedical information (i.e one argued we wouldn't be able to say groups distorted scientific findings about research) because saying a biomedical claim is false, is a biomedical claim. I know there could be concerns with wp:parity as well. I mainly wanted to see what other peoples thoughts would be on the suitability of these sources and what kind of claims should/should not be sourced to them. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, I looked at the two sources. Although these papers may be peer reviewed and even if published in reputable journals, they would have been flagged as not secondary sources: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533] (case study- although this paper also has "qualitatively analyzed a dataset featuring 375 unique citations referenced throughout federal litigation over SAFE to identify these agents of scientific uncertainty's arguments" so I am not sure if this would be more like a meta-analysis, sorry I don't have time to review the methods) and [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116943] ('thematic analysis'). I have not reviewed the evidence that was shared from these in the wikipedia article, but looking to see if similar evidence has been shared in a systematic review or literature review would meet MEDRS. Hope that this helps a little. These are terrific questions! JenOttawa (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the help and spending your time. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

An RfC has been posted at Talk:Acupuncture regarding the lead section and its alignment with Wikipedia’s content policies. Input welcome.

--Haharris9 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:you need to add [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rfc_notice for an Rfc notice]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Health benefits of quitting alcohol is a new entry with a tag that could use some improvement, if any project members are interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've suggest a merge to Health effects of alcohol; discussion at Talk:Health effects of alcohol#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I created a new article Draft:T. Owens Moore. Muirjohnnyes (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sure NPP will take a look at it soon,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

pretty sure the Tension Headache article for wikipedia shouldn't be straight into acupuncture (at least it says no), and chiropractic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_headache 141.195.163.54 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tension headache#Treatment starts with a recommendation to drink some water. Then it describes some exercises and medications. Manual therapies are at the end of that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, hope you're all doing well.

I should have a bit of time over the next month or two to work on some more in depth things. Rather than trying to contribute to other areas, I'm going to try to pick up where I left off a few years ago. One example is User:Berchanhimez/HIDE - where I about 5 years ago tried to categorize templates that may not be needed/used. I know I need to go back and update/expand that list for any templates that are still used - but I also have this list of articles, some of which I could work on. I probably don't have the time to get anything all the way to GA status, but I would happily work on some articles on that list if people think they could be improved in general. I'd appreciate any ideas on what I should work on, and/or any comments on that "HIDE list" that I made a while back, to try and best manage my time over the next while.

Thanks in advance for the comments/ideas :) - Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Adding, I should've done this first, but I just went through my "HIDE list" and removed any templates that were deleted within the past few years. Many of them were deleted at the creators' request from what I saw. If people think me finishing that list for the letters I didn't finish back then, I am happy to spend some time doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Berchanhimez Hi! I personally would be interested in helping improve Joint injection and Patient-controlled analgesia I should have some time in the next month or so if you wanted to discuss further via our talk pages! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Happy to work on those with you - I have both of them on my watchlist still so we can probably just coordinate on their respective talk page if/when needed! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sounds good! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See you there :) my free time will probably start this weekend at the latest, just waiting for a couple projects to confirm they're done irl. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing#Requested move 21 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

An expert review of :Category:Intersex variations would be appreciated, as many of the articles do not contain any text obviously justifying inclusion in the category. However, it is not an area I am knowledgeable in, so I am not sure if this is generally due to deficiencies in the articles or if the category has been over-extended.--Trystan (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Found a spam link in this article ICD coding for rare diseases that had been introduced years ago in this neglected article. Upon further examination, I'm wondering if this article is even warranted or should be nominated for deletion. It basically just explains ICD coding, with some discussion of rare diseases, such as many not having codes. Happy to be educated on this topic. Article started by @Barbara (WVS) in 2017. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support this if you wanted to post it to AFD. Alternative would be a redirect to Rare disease. If we were to keep the article it would need an overhaul. There is several inline tags and the wording is questionable (eg. {{tq|A good place to start is to contact an advocacy organization for the rare disease}}) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd rather see a proper merge (i.e., picking out the best bits) than a Wikipedia:Blank and redirect. I don't see any value in trying to delete the article. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry I meant that the article probably fits the criteria for AFD but a better alternative would be to salvage what we can and move that over to rare diseases. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This may be within the remit of this WikiProject. I've been going through a category of citations that need fixing, and I came across quisqualic acid. It seems to have references that don't support the text, close copying of at least one uncited source, and a general air of oddity. Further attention would be appreciated. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

"Clouding of consciousness" is a completely un-used term as of 2025. If it has any connotations it is with drowsiness (i.e. near-sleep states) or drug-taking; both very different from cog fog in common usage as a cognitive problem and symptom associated with brain damage and conditions such as fibromyalgia. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clouding_of_consciousness#This_article_name_must_be_changed_to_brain_fog_or_cog_fog Asto77 (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

How do veterinary sources fit into MEDRS. The source in question is [https://www.wiley.com/en-nz/Veterinary+Anesthesia+and+Analgesia%2C+The+6th+Edition+of+Lumb+and+Jones-p-9781119830276] would I be able to use this to cite the claim that carfentanil's only use in humans is for research in mapping the μ-opioid receptor? Would I be able to use it to cite the report's a of a primary study e.g. 'A prospective randomized multicenter study in humans reported that the frequency of adverse effects was similar between remifentanil and fentanyl; however, hypotension occurred more commonly in patients receiving remifentanil'

I've provided example but this is a general question on the suitability of high quality veterinary sources and MEDRS rather than any one-specific instance. Sacristy (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ISBN|978-1-119-83027-6}} is a recently published veterinary anesthesia textbook; it is an excellent source in general. Its lone weak spot in the usual MEDRS evaluation framework is that, when speaking of humans, it is stepping outside its main field. We worry a bit about content "outside the journal's normal scope" because it can sometimes indicate a problem (e.g., maybe there is a second use, but the authors hadn't heard of it because it's outside their usual field).

:In this sense, for the general question, I would encourage you to check for human-focused sources. You wouldn't want to use a vet med source to actually contradict a high-quality human med source for information about human medicine (and vice versa).

:You might, however, sometimes want to use the vet med source (e.g., if it's the only thing you've got) or to pair it with a more human-focused source (e.g., if the vet med source says clearly what human med sources hint at). In this case, a second source such as {{pmid|30666589}} ([https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s12630-019-01294-y TWL link] – @Sacristy, you are just 64 edits away from getting free access to sources through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library) might supplement this nicely, as it says "Little is known" in humans and focuses on illicit uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving science and medicine-related articles and we want to see a lot of articles from these fields destubbed and older stale articles improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Category:Stub-Class medicine articles contains almost 12,000 articles. These ratings tend to be a bit out of date, so a small fraction of them are likely Start-class and just need to have the ratings updated/stub tags removed.

:Start with this list if you like to expand [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?cb_labels_no_l=1&min_redlink_count=1&depth=3&minlinks=&project=wikipedia&links_to_all=&active_tab=tab_categories&language=en&rxp_filter=&categories=Stub-Class_medicine_articles%0D%0ASociety_and_medicine_task_force_articles%0D%0A&output_limit=&wpiu=any&search_wiki=&sitelinks_yes=&links_to_any=&labels_yes=&ores_prediction=any&output_compatability=catscan&source_combination=&max_sitelink_count=&wikidata_prop_item_use=&cb_labels_any_l=1&max_age=&interface_language=en&edits%5Banons%5D=both&cb_labels_yes_l=1&before=&maxlinks=&combination=subset&page_image=any&templates_yes=&namespace_conversion=keep&pagepile=&format=html&search_query=&search_max_results=500&langs_labels_no=&negcats=&search_filter=&ns%5B1%5D=1 stubs about people and organizations]. The opposite list is not as clean, but you can [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?sitelinks_any=&larger=&search_query=&max_age=&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&show_redirects=both&edits%5Banons%5D=both&cb_labels_no_l=1&language=en&before=&maxlinks=&search_wiki=&since_rev0=&source_combination=&templates_any=&pagepile=&referrer_url=&search_filter=&interface_language=en&ns%5B1%5D=1&langs_labels_yes=&sitelinks_no=&search_max_results=500&show_soft_redirects=both&links_to_all=&wikidata_prop_item_use=&outlinks_no=&negcats=Society_and_medicine_task_force_articles%0D%0A&depth=3&page_image=any&langs_labels_no=&ores_prob_from=&common_wiki=auto&max_sitelink_count=&common_wiki_other=&project=wikipedia&namespace_conversion=keep&cb_labels_yes_l=1&categories=Stub-Class_medicine_articles%0D%0A&cb_labels_any_l=1&min_sitelink_count=&doit= try this to find more medical articles].

:The top prize for STEM articles is US$300. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Subchorionic haemorrhage => Chorionic hematoma

I encountered the term "subchorionic haemorrhage", didn't know what it meant, ran a search, discovered the chorionic hematoma article, and it seems to describe something like the context in which I encountered the first term. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes this is a good redirect as it is mentioned in the article. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Are you sure? When I ran a Ctrl+F search, I got zero results. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::First bullet item in Chorionic hematoma#Cause and diagnosis. Would the useful bit of information sound something like "hematomas mean hemorrhaging"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah okay, thank you; I don't know what the individual terms mean. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Medicalese can be a foreign language some days. In plain English, subchorionic hemorrhage is a bit of bleeding coming from a particular place during a pregnancy, usually resulting in a little bit of blood in the vagina. Looking quickly at a few sources (I am not a healthcare professional of any kind, and even if I were, I wouldn't be your doctor, etc.), it appears that the usual result is to give everyone a good scare, followed by a healthy baby about six months later. However, there are other outcomes, and if you'd like to read more about it, then you might look over https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559017/ It's a professional-level source but I think it is not impossible to figure out what it's saying.

:::::And, yes, please create that redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Done. Thank you, also, for the useful bit of information; I thought a hematoma/haematoma was some sort of clot. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Farsightedness#Requested move 25 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)