User talk:Erik the Red 2 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 8: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:20, 11 October 2008

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

History of the present illness

New article History of the present illness -- could use review, expansion, and international perspectives. --Arcadian 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left notes on the article's talk page. NCurse _work 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments regarding merge proposal

This is not really about clinical medicine, but I thought some here might be interested. For those familiar with Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF, I received a message from another editor that there is a discussion to merge these articles together. -AED 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Hi all. I've been working on balanitis xerotica obliterans for some time, and would appreciate any help in improving the article. I'd like to get it to featured article standards, if possible. Thanks in advance. Jakew 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculosis

Tuberculosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants that I would like to merge the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Please comment there. -AED 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to merge the two lists? Personally, I don't think it should be done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine are two different projects. Nephron T|C 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:Diseases

Suggestions for an explanatory header & footer in Diseases Infobox - see Template_talk:Infobox_Disease#Suggestion. Please comment there. Finavon 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi,

for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. Ge wordt bedankt, Steven. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable patients

Steven Tyler from Aerosmith has hepatitis C. OK, so every Aerosmith fan with a computer has descended on the hepatitis C article to include this factoid. All very good and well, except it is another case of a celebrity having [some disease] and therefore being notable on the disease page. I dispute that this meets notability criteria. Given that this comes up again and again, I have now asked for an WP:RFC on this. Come to Talk:Hepatitis C to discuss this. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Usage and I'm still not clear on what the consensus opinion is how to deal with these factoids. It appears that some feel that a separate list article should be created. If I may, I'm going to post for reference a few threads that have touched on this subject:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/archive 6#Famous people with...

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/archive 7#Famous people with... (Part II)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)#Suggestion

-AED 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on Talk:Hepatitis C resulted in the Prominent patients list being extracted to a separate article: List of people with hepatitis C. This currently being considered for deletion. You may wish to comment here. Colin°^Talk 14:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenobarbital for epilepsy

Calling all WikiDocs with experience or knowlege of prescribing practice or guidelines for the treatment of epilepsy. Would you please make your way over to the friendly discussion at Talk:Phenobarbital where your opinions would be welcome. The sticking point is the sentence:

"In more affluent countries, it is no longer recommended as a first or second-line choice anticonvulsant."

Remember to bring your textbooks with you. Thank-you, Colin°^Talk 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of PUD and H. pylori

Hi all - I am, very much, a non-specialist. I have been doing research on the history of peptic ulcer disease and H. pylori for my dissertation. In doing so, I wrote a timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, for myself, and also posted it here. To be sure I'm not royally messing anything up, could someone take a look at it and suggest improvements where necessary. Thank you very much! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! -- Samir धर्म 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaken baby syndrome

I received a message from a physician new to Wikipedia asking me to take a look at Shaken baby syndrome. He had some concerns that his attempt to correct what he considered biased information was reverted. Given that this subject is beyond my area of expertise, I explained that I would forward his concerns here. Thanks! -AED 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversized stub templates

There's a couple of stub types that related to this project that seem to have become somewhat intractably oversized: {{med-stub}} and {{pharma-stub}}. If anyone has any ideas what addition sub-types it would be useful to create, or is minded to do some sorting to the various existing more specific tags, that'd be very welcome. Alai 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.collegehealth-e.com links

On two occasions now links to this website's health topics were inserted into multiple pages (see Contributions Collegehealth-e and Contributions 71.127.172.67). The multiplicity and absence of adding any content seem at first glance to be a case of spamming. The current editor User:71.127.172.67 has following a test-warning now engaged on Talk:Human papillomavirus stating:

A well written article has been written that summarized treatment of HPV in "college-age" patients. This article is located at http://www.collegehealth-e.com/4/n02.htm any thoughts?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.172.67 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 October 2006

The articles are well written and, more importantly, well sourced/cited. The problem is more of whether content should be added to wikipedia articles or external links. Ideally no external link should be made if it fails to add greater information than the finished article should have once it reaches featured-article status. In this case I think the collegehealth-e.com is generally more detailed. Secondly wikipedia is not here to act as a link to other sources - we don't have one-to-one links to the equivalent article at Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encarta - yet I appreciate that collegehealth-e.com is not trying to be an encyclopaedia on all topics. I am more uncertain the more collegehealth-e.com articles I look at, perhaps this is a useful resource? But if so, should it be a standard external link resource provided by Template:Infobox Disease ? What do other editors think ? David Ruben ^Talk 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copy across the latest exchange from my talk page:

A review of the Wikipedia guidelines reveals: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." Links relevant to the college-age population are greater in detail for that demographic than the Wikipedia article calls for. In regard to your accusation of "spamming": your claims are speculated. You should review the external links contents before making accusations that a legitimate contributor is spamming. 71.127.172.67 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPAM includes wide-scale external link spamming, and WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer point 2 states "If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?" and point 5 notes "Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun."

So despite having been that "itchy trigger finger", I do tend agree with your assessment of the depth of detail, so can I suggest you present your case at the Clinical Medicine projest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#www.collegehealth-e.com links) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology announcement

Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the clinical medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Look forward to more eye-related FA's -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut WP:Eye redirects to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology project. Phew! EyeMD 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is one to keep an eye on. ;-) Nephron T|C 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for peer review on breast implant rewrite

I've done a fairly major rewrite in a "sandbox" on the entry on breast implants at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant/Revised which I would like some input into from the group. This is a pretty dry & evidence based presentation re. the history, use, & reviews of alleged links to systemic disease (with silicone implants). Breast implants is one of the medical topics that really bring the political activists out (like autism & vaccines, fibromyalgia, aesbestosis, etc..) and that has plagued this entry for months. In fact, the most prominent anti-implant activist in the world has been actively engaged in misrepresenting this wikipedia entry and continuing her political campaign thru it. There is a clear general consensus in the world medical literature on this and that is the where the discussion needs to start IMO. Droliver 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've history merged the revised version with the original version, as I view the new one to be a vast improvement -- Samir धर्म 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination for Iridodialysis

As per AED's suggestion, Iridodialysis is nominated for DYK here.... EyeMD 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trip database links

One of the owners of the Trip Database (lists 3rd party EBM sites on any given searched topic) started to add links to their site to multipe pages. This clear breaches spamming policy (adding site to multiple pages) and WP:External links policy (not adding links to website one is involved with).

However the system of collating EBM resources is intriging. Do other editors feel this is a useful external resource to use? If so, then should it be added to articles not as manual External link, but rather within Template:Infobox Disease. However this is not a site that directly gives information, but rather provides onward links, several of which (eg eMedicine) can already be directly linked to by the existing template.David Ruben ^Talk 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use - Perhaps a useful site to mention here in the WikiProject Clinical Medicine and on the explanation given for the Template:Infobox Disease, as a resource for editors to use in finding the EBM to write a good article with. But site/link to it should not appear in the articles/template itself, being a tertiary directory listing rather than the secondary EBM resources themselves. David Ruben ^Talk 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRIP is a very useful resource for EBM, and I think it's well worth a link/mention in the "External links" section of Evidence-based medicine - though I agree that adding it to all those articles in that way was out of order. There is a link in Evidence-based medicine, and I'll try and ensure it stays there. Meanwhile, maybe Johnbrassey would like to write an article on TRIP! Thoroughly justified, I'd say. Gnusmas 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry my enthusiasm got the better of me, I assure you there was no intention to spam! I'm actually involved in the medical wiki ganfyd and most sections of ganfyd has a resource section that includes a link to auto-search TRIP (as well as other resoucres) see, for example, Radiculopathy. I'd be delighted if TRIP was included in an appropriate infobox. I've added an entry to the TRIP Database and will expand on that shortly. Once again apologies for, inadvertently, spamming! --Jonbrassey 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use: if it's a collection of links, it's against WP:EL and would set a bad example.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- To reduce TRIP to being a 'collection of links' seems a bit harsh! If any wiki does not answer the person's question - what then? By allowing them off to a search engine gives them a further opportunity. On TRIP we acknowledge that by auto-searching PubMed. My, biased, view is that TRIP can help wikipedia users - I suppose the trick is finding the right mechanism! --Jonbrassey 06:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed addition and deletion of links to TRIP database. Although spamming is not accepted, the general concept of what was added to systmatic review article about TRIP database was correct. TRIP is one of the best ways for researchers and other people involved in health care to find systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Unfortunately, the articles about EBM are not very well expanded, and are too few. But if they were expanded more, TRIP should have been linked from two or three of them, one of which being systematic review. Regarding this, I believe a link from that article to TRIP is appropriate. If you have no objections, I may re-add the link and information.
By the way TRIP is not a collation of links, but rather a meta-search engine for medical evidence. Instead of searching multiple resoureces (like MedLine, etc) for a clinical guideline, one may search TRIP for the keywords in question. On the other hand, TRIP has nothing in common with the other items in the Template:Infobox Disease and shouldn't be placed there. One should only add links to the main page of the TRIP database in relevant articles, not to the search result pages. huji—TALK 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Huji. A description of TRIP and a link in systematic review (and probably a few other articles) would be a very good idea. If I have time (and if Huji or Jonbrassey don't get there first) ... Gnusmas 21:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Whilst perhaps accepting useful to editors in researching for wikipedia articles, I'm still yet to be convinced that direct links in medical diseases articles appropriate (links in systemic review and EBM articles excepting). I accept this may partially/largely reflect fact I've just not encountered the database before, nor heard it mentioned in the multiple GP surgeries I have worked at as a locum. If we do add links to its EBM pages, then I'm happy to code up a suitable template :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRIP was designed as a tool to help answer clinical questions for GPs and now more widely to answer a wider set of clinical questions. It started with the Welsh ATTRACT service and more recently the NLH Q&A Service. In that time me and my team have answered over 7,500 clinical questions, of which 95%+ were for GPs. I've got a fair empathy with the GPs information requirements and the problems they encounter answering their questions. I'm not hugely surprised that many haven't heard of TRIP as were subscription only from 2002 till Sept this year. However, popularity might not be the best measure of usefullness. For example I would have thought they'd all heard of Medline and the Cochrane Library ;-) --Jonbrassey 08:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ruben! Did this explanation convince you? Why do you think a template is approrpiate? In a comparison, all other items in the current templates are web sites which offer information by themselves, or offer links to information that they cite; TRIP does none of them. It doesn't dirrectly cite information, it lists information cited by other web sites. It, however, applies a filter so you see portions of what they site.... If you are convinced, I will add the requried links inside the content of the articles in a week. huji—TALK 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - still feel more use to editors trying to source material to write wikipedia articles than source to be cited within an article (one would cite the primary source that Trip might present as a summary). For some specific interpretation of evidence, then NLH Q&A Service might be a source, but underlying TRIP database is not yet notable enough for use as a widely occuring external link David Ruben ^Talk 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So it is not going to be a "widely occuring external link" but what if we have an article named TRIP explaining the TRIP web site and its services, and we have some internal links to that article in place? Does it fit in your point of view? I guess it does, so please confirm it. huji—TALK 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga for Thyroid Disease - please vote. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori

Just a quick heads-up that this timeline has been nominated for Featured List status. Please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. Thank you! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment there. NCurs e _work 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable chemotherapy articles

Lowdose chemotherapy & Insulin potentiation therapy seem a bit questionable to me. The article on lowdose chemotherapy definitely seems non-NPOV. WikiDocs familiar with chemotherapy may want to check these over. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this. The low dose chemo article is poor. It looks like a cut and paste from a patient advocacy website. Bad style apart from anything else: written in the second person. some of the assertions are wrong or grossly exaggerated eg: chemo causes constant vomiting, high risk of infective deaths, implied universal baldness. The science is dodgy too. The cited abstract from the JCO in 2000 is actually from a reputable phase 2 study (I know one of the authors) which has subsequently not been taken up. Low dose oral 5FU is not used to my knowledge, since oral capecitabine came along. Low/Moderate dose maintainance chemotherapy would make an interesting article. The current effort is not it. Insulin Potentiation Therapy is pure dangerous quackery. Jellytussle 07:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

		The Original Barnstar
		To all CLINMED participants – today is Physician's Day down here, and, both in honor of this day and in recognition of your tireless work towards making (and keeping, IMHO) Wikipedia a reliable source of medical information for laypersons and professionals alike, I award each and every one of you these shiny (rather rusty, actually) Original Barnstars!!! Wear them with pride! (feel free to add one to your user page/talk page if you like. Go ahead, you know you earned it.) Fvasconcellos 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's disease

As of October 18, 2006, some of us have been fighting an editing war with some editors who think THC should be included in the Potential Treatments section. If you would like to add your comments to the discussion (and to review the article in general on our Peer Review page), we would welcome that. --Chrispounds 03:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that several medical articles have been hit by links or very preliminary data promoting the use of THC as a medical treatment. It looks like an effort to push the medical cannabis agenda forward. Anyways, THC already exists as a FDA-approved medication: marinol. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dopeheads are all over the place. I really do not understand it. Instead of just demented they'll be stoned and demented. Hardly an achievement. I strongly dispute the need to mention phase I-II studies unless the field near-universally aknowledges that this is promising. JFW | T@lk 11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unfortunately, it's difficult to inform people about being cautious when interpreting scientific studies, especially when they are either extremely enthusiastic or have an agenda. Also, the news media definitely doesn't help, since press releases tend to have a major problem with overlooking key details. --Uthbrian (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with cannabis immediately becomes news for its sheer urban legend potential. The only proven cannabinoid manipulation in clinical use is rimonabant. I'm happy for large phase III studies to be considered for inclusion, but anything less is misusing the general scope of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD

Please comment on this CFD. Medical categories are poorly maintained, and this one adds another layer of fudge. JFW | T@lk 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably put one of those "diffusion" tags on some of our main categories and start cleaning them out, probably starting with Category:Medicine.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template fixing request

Template:Infobox_Hospital could use some parserfunctions and cleanup, I tried to use it in Townsville General Hospital but apart from displaying empty parameters, the content was pushed to the right... Maybe it could resemble our great Template:Infobox Disease?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied the styling features of Template:Infobox NHS hospital which allowed for the hospital name in large and section headers. The UK template has a series of location parameters (locale and county), yet this one has just a Location - would not a country parameter be useful ? I've added the necessary code to include the picture (see Cedars-Sinai Medical Center) and added width and caption options. Not sure what is supposed to be done with the Logo image. David Ruben ^Talk 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet sure how the articles have been set up to use teh template, but Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center (Seattle) set the logo parameter as [[Image:Childrens logo.gif]] whereas I've coded the template to take just Childrens logo.gif (see edit change) David Ruben ^Talk 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David I really appreciate it!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital infobox merger proposal

I think Template:Infobox NHS hospital should be merged into Template:Infobox Hospital, we don't have specific templates for Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ, S.Africa etc etc and several UK hospitals already are under the somewhat US-Centric Template:Infobox Hospital. In essence I think Template:Infobox hospital just needs some additional parameters or optional alternatives (similar to citation templates allowing 'author' vs 'first' & 'last', or 'date' vs 'year & 'month') to allow it to be less US-centric. I can do the necessary coding and have some ideas of how this should all work. Whilst I was bold enough to add a country code parameter, the other options could benefit from comment before I dive in :-) Please see Template talk:Infobox Hospital. Thanks David Ruben ^Talk 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our listing is up-to-date.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public health

I think this article should be split into several other articles - it would be a good thing, I feel. Does anyone else agree with this proposal?? SunStar Net 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this at: Talk:Public health.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis

I've had two different editors express concern about the Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis page. One has asked for a broader set of viewpoints at RFC. I've been reading through the material and will also be interested to hear what everyone thinks. InvictaHOG 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing biographies

I discovered to my dismay that David Sackett and Donald S. Fredrickson still have no Wikipedia biography. For DSF there is a NAS memoir[1]. JFW | T@lk 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started one on Sackett and it is unapologetically focused on his Canadian connection-- McMaster University-- where he did the work he is most famous for. I haven't read his book... but I think the his article on stats/experimental design in the CMAJ is a must read for any one unfamiliar with the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. Nephron T|C 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medicine

Could I have a hand in depopulating Category:Medicine. Enormous amounts of cruft have been unnecessarily categorised here. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we start with the subcats or clean the main one? NCurs e _work 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep from the top level down. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it over the weekend. I've copied the most common proper re-categorizations onto my user page if anyone is interested in a quick link! InvictaHOG 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no end to this silly job. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link check

Could someone please comment on the external link added anonymously to Epilepsy during this diff. The site appears to be the work of one US doctor. The Internet Archive shows the site isn't very active, with no significant update for two years. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/cleanup of Rickets, Osteomalacia

Hi there. I posted a note about a proposed merge of Rickets and Osteomalacia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Please_review_merge_proposal_for_Rickets_and_Osteomalacia, but I meant to post it here. I would appreciate if the resident Wikipedia medical experts would review the comments I made on that page. Thanks. Mike Dillon

I voiced my opinon on Talk:Rickets about this. In any case, I think the endocrinology stuff (in general) could be organized a bunch. Sorely missing, IMHO, is a series of templates that list all the hormones in their subclasses-- i.e. peptide hormones, steroid hormones-- and then a clear linking structure so that they are tied together. Beyond that we need an article that explains the concepts of hypo- & hyper- function--i.e. hormone disregulation. Do we have an endocrinologist amongst us that would like to work on that? Nephron T|C 08:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles for deletion

For those interested:

~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Kwitko -AED 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief complaint -AED 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudden Falling Down Syndrome --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Consolidation of the colon bits

A while ago I tried to consolidate the colon articles under colon. I now see the parts of the colon are again out there. There is no known physiologic role the specializes the parts of the colon aside from the resevoir function of the rectum. If the colon is left in parts on wikipedia it is at risk for editing problems in the future. Any idea how to tie the organ back together? Steve Kd4ttc 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Talk:Colon_(anatomy)#Why_split_up_the_colon.3F. --Arcadian 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for comment Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade

Not many people would seem to watch the Template:Infobox Hospital or Template:Infobox NHS hospital. I have a proposal to upgrade Template:Infobox Hospital and then redirect Template:Infobox NHS Hospital to this. I would appreciate comment on choice of parameter names, e.g. 'HealthCare' vs. Funding, alternatives to 'Standards' (applies to developing countries with external accreditation certification), 'Region' vs Area (County in UK or US, but "County" as a term does not apply outside of UK & US). In the next day or so, I plan to implement the changes (see this demonstration), so any final comments welcomed :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hospital has been upgraded, all hospitals listed in Ontario have had the template added to them and, I think, all other Canadian and non-US hospitals with articles using the old template upgraded. See below re issues of how best codify for the US. Next task will be switch over all Template:Infobox NHS hospital using articles - help would be appreciated, see Template talk:Infobox NHS hospital :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hospital US HealthCare funding classifications

Having updated the Template:Infobox Hospital, I'm having a little difficulty deciding how hospitals are classified as to their funding status in the US.

For Canadian hospitals, they are either "Private", "Charity" or part of the "Public Medicare (Canada)" system.
In the UK hospitals are (or at least until the Labour government started its love-affair with private hospitals) either purely "Private" or "Public NHS" (which may have a few private beds to help support the hospital).
For the US, have a look at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've set the HealthCare parameter to "Medicare" in as much as it takes Medicare patients. I suspect though that this shows my lack of understanding.
The US clearly has some "Charity hospitals" but would I be right in thinking that most hospitals would be considered "Private" with it then up to the individual patient to arrange to pay themselves, claim on their health insurance policy, or be eligible under Medicare (United States) - or are there quite distinct hospitals which either only/never deal with Medicare cases ?
So do I need to get the template to show for setting "HealthCare=Medicare" the phrase "Private, accepts Medicare" - or some other generally agreed series of phrases ? David Ruben ^Talk 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implants

I have refactored a long discussion here about breast implants that should be taking place on Talk:Breast implant. It seems User:Droliver is in discussion with some users whose agenda is obvious (as is his own, being a plastic surgeon). I'm somewhat concerned that Wikipedia is being used as a soapbox, with the page presently turning into a anti-implant vehicle. I think the page looked fairly good when Droliver rewrote it, although the other parties would obviously dispute that.

I think the editing on breast implant is presently so heavy that no serious editor can be expected to keep up with it. I certainly cannot. There must be a way for the various parties to agree on some principles (e.g. not to cite case reports, lay press accounts and court proceedings where clinical studies are available). JFW | T@lk 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver claimed that his version of this article was Wiki clinic-med reviewed. I was trying to ascertain if it was. Clearly it was not. This is not surprising, however, since the sources used in the article you thought okay were misquoted and misrepresented, as well.

What concerns me and some other serious editors is that any medical professional would want to make a soapbox "FOR" implants -- to the point of misrepresenting the very studies he cites.

What you thought was okay was extremely pro-implant. Is that okay with you? Is it okay with you to misrepresent sources? It is not just the source that is used, it is blatantly misstating the studies that are cited. Objecting to that is not "anti-implant". It is just good - and honest - writing.Jance 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start is to accurately quote or represent the sources an editor uses. It doesn't matter how well sourced an article is, if the sources are misrepresented, and facts made up out of whole cloth. If you are indeed a serious editor, then you would bother to read the objections. The editing was not "heavy" then, but nothing was done to correct these obvious errors. As a medical professional, you should be concerned about misstating studies. I pointed one out that was blatantly obvious, which you evidently did not read. That is not responsible for a serious editor who is willing to comment on the bias of an article.Jance 00:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is turning into an attack page against User:Droliver. Concerns made on that page should be made in a civil fashion, without the need for disparaging comments -- Samir धर्म 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that disparaging comments should not be made - against anyone. I believe that Dr. Zuckerman and I were responding to Oliver's attack on us. We surely should discuss misstatements of facts and sources. It would be good for everyone to be civil, as I stated on the discussion page. It is important to point out problems with the article, unless the majority (and doctors here) simply want to take one person's word for what is written. Jance 01:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What one person calls "pro-implant" is regarded as established fact by others. I personally disbelieve claims of systemic illness due to implants, based on the many large studies in this field. I've got a deep antipathy to the uneducated saying that "uh, I feel unwell, it must be my immune system" without a shred of objective proof documenting immune dysfunction. Too many diseases have been mistakenly labeled "immune related" while the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

It is clear that you have a deep antipathy, but it is also clear that you assume quite a bit, and are quick to assume that I or others are (1) "uneducated" and have no objective proof documenting immune dysfunction, or (2) lying. You wouldn't believe it if I personally sent you proof, because it would not be consistent with your understanding of the prevailing medical wisdom - even though that prevailing medical wisdom officially admits that there are no long term studies on rupture or its effects.

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know; but what we are so sure we know that ain't so. Jance 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want that page to become stable, you will have to honestly negotiate with Droliver and other "pro-implant" editors, and not just cite more FDA reports. FDA reports are a surrogate for real science. Start by being nice to him (you may disagree on issues but he is a human being). This page is to coordinate 100s of articles. I don't think the content of the breast implant page should be discussed over here. Jance, did you previously edit as Jgwlaw (talk · contribs)? Your use of HTML markup suggests that you are. Could you please declare this openly on your userpage, as use of sock puppets is generally discouraged on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand or did not read anything I wrote.

I will ask it again. Do you think it is acceptable to misstate a study's findings and conclusions? Is this the science to which you refer? I was not even talking about an FDA study, but a plastic surgery journal which Oliver cited as a source.

I was not asking for an article that said said or implied that implants cause systemic illness. If you look at my edits, you will see that. I am interested in presenting a balanced view - and I do not mean equal weight to both a mainstream and non-mainstream view. I mean accurately present sources cited, and the risks present - even the local complications that are undisputed.

I have asked for a Wiki clin-med review, if such a thing exists. Oliver stated that the article had undergone such a review in his edit summaries, when it had not.

Good, at least we know it's you, Molly. If you think Droliver is misrepresenting the results of a study, please give him a chance to respond to these accusations on Talk:Breast implant, rather than explanting all his edits. I've urged him to enter into a reasonable conversation with yourself and Drzuckerman.

In medicine I've learnt not to mistake test results for symptoms. ANA/ENA positivity don't equal disease, even if the symptoms are somewhat similar to those diseases typically associated with ANA/ENA positivity. These markers have not been studied specifically as diagnostic markers for diseases that have not even been recognised, let alone have an agreed set of diagnostic criteria. Drug-induced lupus tends to be anti-histone positive anyway. JFW | T@lk 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how you assume that only one test and one parameter was abnormal and no clinical symptoms existed. I do wonder why.

Addendum: Droliver made significant changes to the article and then asked members of this Wikiproject to review and comment on the new version. He received some positive comments. In that sense, I do not disagree that his version is a consensus version and that substantial, large-scale edits should be discussed first and then performed after new consensus emerges. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet he did, even though he inaccurately stated the conclusions of a study. Not interpretation. Actual numbers.

As to changes -- Drolvier is the one who first completely changed the article, calling the other version "ham-handed". That said, I hope at this point Oliver, and the rest of us can talk. Please read what I wrote on the talk page.

Breast Implant Article

Samir reverted back to what Oliver had, stating there was a Clin-Med review (I looked, and there was not). Do I think there is an agenda? I would like to know who "clin-med" reviewed the article, but thus far nobody will claim credit except perhaps for JFW, and I am not sure that was an acknowledgement. I would also like Samir to help in mediation, without throwing his hands up and writing "Futility" because of new editors who posted. By the way, I do not know those users, and they are nobody in my household. Anyone can get frustrated and angry at this kind of situation, including me. Jance 06:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an agenda? Really now, this is getting childish. The page is protected to promote discussion given the recent edits made. User:Droliver made a request to have this reviewed previously [2], and that was looked over by a few of us, including myself. We can use that as a starting point for changes, which is why I reverted to the version closest to that. Discussion should take place on Talk:Breast implant. As an aside, I view allegations such as "strong-arming" and saying that I have a clear agenda on this matter to be attacks, and ask Jance to cease the same -- Samir धर्म 06:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only speak from what experience I have. Not childish, an observation. It seems a third party, totally independent, has also seen the POV. I found that interesting. Yes, we can discuss on the talk page. I know that you and JFW were involved with Droliver's article, but evidently nobody checked it for accuracy and balance (pointing out the mainstream view, which INCLUDES risks and recommendations). Hopefully we can do that finally. Outside Wikis perhaps, who are willing to actually read the article and sources, and see whether or not it looks like an advertisement for breast implants. Jance 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of an article is not equivalent to supporting that version. I agree that the article needs to be edited for improvement. No question. But when there are reversions taking place that frequently, the article can be protected. It is not a reflection on which version is correct, but on finding a starting place for moving forward with consensus edits -- Samir धर्म 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Samir. You deliberately chose a version other than the last version, to protect, because you assumed/believed Oliver/etc that it was "clin-med" reviewed. That version was not clin-med approved, or if it was, nobody caught glaring mistakes and overlooked the use of superlatives and obviously slanted prose. I can't even get a straight answer about who reviewed it, if anyone. Jance 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your attacks against me are not conducive to helping with the article. The protection will be removed, but discuss the issues first at Talk:Breast implant -- Samir धर्म 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lock is not removed.

Are there any doctors who care at all about accuracy in a medical article?

If you do, then please help us with the breast implant article, and read what Dr. Zuckerman and I have to say. All I ask is that anyone bother to read it. If you do, then you cannot disagree with the obvious. There has been misrepresentation of the studies and of the FDA decision. I know that in *real* life there are doctors who have some shred of intellectual honesty.Jance 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if someone would either help with the BI mediation or unprotect the article. Samir has locked the article on one person's version, which is grossly inaccurate, and not reviewed that I can see. If he or anyone else refuses to read the studies cited in this advertisement (it's not now a legitimate article), then the least he/she can do is to allow others to do so. As it is, Samir's actions do not show a credible attempt at neutrality. (I have left this, since David pointed out that Samir does not need to show neutrality). Jance 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what an objective editor wrote (but someone will probably call him a SPU since it is an unpopular opinion in the "mess lounge" -------

The conduct of Droliver (talk • contribs) was reported at WP:ANI and taking a look at his contributions, I found a few very questionable diffs [4] [5] [6] and a strange blanking of his talk page archive. I'm all for assuming good faith but this user seems to be unwilling to uphold our neutrality policies. Note however that I have absolutely no competence to judge the current content dispute. Pascal.Tesson 07:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Jance 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samir does not need to "show a credible attempt at neutrality" and such accusation seems a clear breach of WP:AGF - may I suggest that an apology is warranted. The action was that of an admin intervening in a nasty edit war, with a ridiculous 250 edits to an article since 1st October. He states he selected the last obvious claim of a consensus-sought version (no admin is going to read through 250 edits to see whether that was true or not, nor which was a "neutral" version), and applied a pause in the war. Comments on how to proceed seems at last to being discussed on the talk page and when consensus is reached then the page can be unlocked and good, well-written, informative and of course NPOV adjustments can be made to bring the article hopefully closer to WP:Good article and eventually to WP:Featured article status that all involved I am sure seek. David Ruben ^Talk 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked who 'reviewed' this article, to no avail. I am not going to belabor Samir's actions or inactions. It isn't worth it. I hope that he will help mediate, and was disappointed when he wrote a section called "futility" criticizing new editors whom I do not know. I would have hoped that someone who takes a position that an article has been 'reviewed' would at least respond when asked who reviewed it. I was banging my head against a wall trying to get any information. So to continue this discussion is a waste of time -- assuming good faith goes only so far. Thank you all for your input. Jance 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous. Should these attacks continue, please be advised that an RfC/RfAr is forthcoming against User:Jance -- Samir धर्म 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is ridiculous, Samir? What in the paragraph above is insulting? What is wrong with it? I would like to know. Is it impermissible to ask who reviewed it, when there was nothing anywhere that I could see? And I said I was not going to belabor your actions or inactions. How is that an attack? (It isn't). What is ridiculous is your threat. Jance 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance -- Samir धर्म 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lupus erythematosus

Would appreciate your comments on whether the following text regarding silicone breast implant rupture is relevant to lupus erythematosus:

However there are no long-term studies (longer than 10 years) on women whose implants break. Because ruptures are usually "silent" (without symptoms), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that women follow-up after the first three years of implantation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)s, and every two years thereafter. ^[1] In approving silicone implants, the FDA will require manufacturers to inform women that implants are not lifetime devices. ^[2]

In the context of the lack of association between breast implant rupture and lupus, I removed the text twice [3] [4], only to have it immediately reverted. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Lupus erythematosus: [5], [6], [7], [8] -- Samir धर्म 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver was the one that originally injected, for no reason, comments about breast implants in the lupus article - of course, suggesting that there is absolutely no link. The reality is that the FDA, while recently approving silicone implants, has stated that there are no long term studies on rupture (there are not) or its effects (there are not). For that reason, and because rupture is usually silent (without symptoms), the FDA recommends women have MRIS to detect rupture 3 years after implantation, and every 2 years thereafter. In the US, MRIS are about $1500 a pop, which insurance does not cover. Oliver has deleted all discussion of this in the breast implant article and continually portrays me and others as 'fringe' or 'lunatics' or worse. I would like anyone here to tell me that what the FDA has stated and recommends (which is all I have ever wanted to state) is "fringe" or "lunatics". I know Oliver thinks it is, but I don't think he represents every docotr.Jance 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, to imply as Oliver has, that silicone implants are absolutely safe and there are long term studies indicating this, is flatly wrong.Jance 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a revert and left a note on the talk page. NCurs e _work 18:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samir, that was an appropriate intervention I'd submit. The text that was added there was agenda driven from other topics on wikipedia (see breast implant) and more of a bizarre free-association added into the middle of the SLE entry. Some who are convinced of this cause-effect relationship are going to dispute this despite a great deal of literature in agreement on the lack of said association. How to treat these political debates that spill over into medical areas (be it abortion, vaccines, homeopathy/osteopathy, chiropracty, breast implants, etc..) is one that threatens credibility of wikipedia as a reliable resource. This example does beg the question of how to treat minority or even occassional fringe views on these things that differ from widely held mainstream beliefs. I'm not always sure how to balance that.Droliver 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one way for balance: plenty of comments from the wiki medical community. You need feed-backs to find a solution. NCurs e _work 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And it would be helpful if all discussions on an article were on the talk page, including the feedback by medical doctors. Other editors should have a chance to comment, as well, I would think, or is it only MDs who are allowed to comment? Jance 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to see the mention of breast implants removed from the lupus article. It is peripheral at best. However, the new "labeling" required by FDA for silicone gel breast implants (as of Nov 2006) specifies that safety and effectiveness has not been established for lupus and other autoimmune diseases ( see http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056d.pdf on page 11). (By the way, the old labeling is almost identical on this issue, and this label is identical for all silicone implant manufacturers). The reason it is not established is that women with autoimmune diseases were intentionally excluded from the studies because there were concerns about safety. Drzuckerman 21:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

breast

Could some here please give feedback on the very brief way in which plastic surgery of the breast (in the breast) has been proposed. I've once again been called a shill for the medical-industrial conspiracy for what is about a bland a paragraph as can be written.

Please show me ONE place where I or anyone accused you of being a shill for the "medical-industrial conspiracy"? Is that like the military-industrial complex? Jance 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Surgical procedures of the breast include those for both cosmetic and reconstrucive surgery indications. After mastectomy some women choose to have their breasts reconstructed, either with breast implants or autologous tissue transfer, using fat and tissues from the abdomen (TRAM flap) or back (latissiumus muscle flap). Breast reduction surgery is a common procedure which involves resecting excess breast tissue and skin with repositioning of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC). Cosmetic procedures include breast lifts (mastopexy), breast augmentation with implants, and procedures that combine both elements. Implants containing eithersilicone gel or saline are available for augmentation or reconstructive surgeries. Any surgery of the breast carries with it the potential for interfering with future breast feeding, causing alterations in NAC sensation, and possible difficulty in interpreting mammography (xrays of the breast). The American Society of Plastic Surgery and other professional organizations have generally discouraged cosmetic breast surgery in younger teens (< 18 y.o.) as the volume of their breast tissue may continue to grow significantly as they mature and over concerns of understanding risks and benefits of the procedure. [blacklisted link removed] ThanksDroliver 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good paragraph that covers a broad topic succinctly. Two ammendments though:

I think some mention, or better a reference to elsewhere, of ethical/licensing issues that apply to this field of surgery needs be made. Of course these issues apply to all cosmetic surgery (i.e. whether justified surgery in otherwise physically well person and what this says about self-worth etc etc) and so this paragraph should not debate out the topics, but at least acknowledge and link to an article that does cover these points. Perhaps a brief way of doing this would be to incorporate into that 1st sentance a linked phrase such as "..., [[Plastic surgery|giving rise to some debate]]".
Also there probably is a problem in stating "Implants containing either silicone gel ... are available for augmentation or reconstructive surgeries." with the choice of tense of "are". With silicone product licenses withdrawn and yet to be fully restored, better and more neutral reporting (especially given problems beset by breast implant article) would be a rewording to historical usage and so bypass the need to consider current debates - so I would suggest: "Implants containing either silicone gel ... have been available for augmentation or reconstructive surgeries." The change in tense is correct, as no one disputes they were used and it makes no implication whether they will definitely be re-licensed or not. David Ruben ^Talk 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ruben, the FDA very recently approved the limited use of silicone implants (for augmentation purposes, with women 22 years old and older), with a number of conditions and a recommendation that women have an MRI to detect rupture 3 years after implantation, and every 2 years after that. The reason for this recommendation is that there are no long term studies on the rate of rupture, or the effects of rupture. Dr. Zuckerman and I have consistently tried to include this infomration in the article, and Oliver has continually deleted it. Because he is a medical doctor, he is not viewed by the MDS here as "political" although he gets away with accusing Dr. Zuckerman (an epidemiologist) as political. Is there nobody here who will at least question Dr. Oliver's bald assertions ???? I have pinned him down on at least one misstatement, but I cant' continue to fight a whole crowd of doctors willing to defend another doctor at any cost. It's unbelievable. That's enough to make anyone hate doctors.Jance 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the alternative, which Dr. Oliver did not like (that neither I nor Dr. Zuckerman first wrote):

After mastectomy some women have their breasts reconstructed, either with breast implants or autologous tissue transfer, using fat and tissues from the abdomen or back. Breast implants can also be used to increase the size of healthy breasts or for male-female sex reassignment. Surgeons discourage the operation in young women because the breasts normally grow until about the age of thirty.[2] In the US, the FDA has restricted augmentation for women 22 and older. [3]

What is wrong with this properly referenced version?Jance 03:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wrong, I think, but is " the FDA has restricted augmentation for women 22 and older" for all augmentation (as implied), or is it just augmentatuon using silcone (vs saline) implants? Whilst your version starts & finishes breast augmentation discussion in a single block (neat style), Drolivers version also inserted into middle of the paragraph mention of breast lifts and breast reduction - these are missing from above alternative version, or did you have a subsequent sentance not copied&pasted above?. David Ruben ^Talk 05:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually David, the paragraph I wrote was indeed accurate. For some background: There isn't a blanket "age restriction" on augmentation in America. There is some language in the FDA treatment of silicone implants for cosmetic use with the recent approval (which Jance is referring to)stating indications are for women 22 y.o.+ which on a practical level makes using them "off label" if you choose to use them on someone younger. Canada (with their Oct. approval) used similar language. These recomendations do not apply to saline devices and the packaging label still reads 18yo under it's indications. The rest of the world has not adopted this stance with silicone (this is more of a political concession specific to N. America), but our professional organizations world-wide have largely condemned cosmetic breast surgery in teens for the reasons mentioned. The link to the American PLastic Surgery Society position paper on this was attached which is consistant with others. Referring to the MRI recomendation by the FDA (which was not endorsed by Canada & is not standard world practice)in a 4 sentence paragraph not even about Implants, much less the singular American implant experience, doesn't seem to belong

Jance, plese keep in mind that the paragraph is not endorsing or condeming anything and went out of it's way to mention complications of breast surgeries and the aformentioned general principles about avoiding surgery on adolescents. Droliver 17:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah David, you make a valid point. The FDA has restricted the augmentation using silicone (not saline) implants to women 22 years old and older - and that should be mentioned. And, it has also recommended MRIs 3 years after implantation and every two years thereafter. Whether Canada has or not, I do not know. However, this is definitely worth mentioning, since the reason for the recommendation is to detect silient rupture. Detecting silent rupture is important because there are no long-term studies on the rate of rupture (past 10 years), or its effect (when women have had ruptured implants for any period of time.) Oliver did not want to mention this, even in the section on FDA approval in the breast implant article. Why?

Also, a previous author had linked to valid websites, as well. What makes Oliver's better than another author's, to allow him to summarily delete them without discussion?Jance 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so "licensing" of silicone is for over 18 (does the FDA "restricted" anything ? - surgeons & patients may still legally use, allbeit off label). Mention of this though is US-centric - not situation in UK as far as I know. Janice, what about the 2nd point, namely alternative version not mentioning the other 2 types of proceedures (lift & reduction) ? David Ruben ^Talk 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand corrected. The FDA doesn't prevent doctors from ignoring the approval conditions and recommendations. I don't know why that surprises me since it has been okay for the last 30+ years to use untested and unapproved devices in women. I suppose it is similar to using drugs on children that have not been studied or approved on children. I have learned a bit of something - that doctors can more or less do whatever they "choose". Jance 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current brief paragraph on plastic surgery, which mentions autologous tissue transfer as well as implants and restrictions on implants, is accurate and seems y the correct length (short).

In late Nov, the FDA announced that silicone gel breast implants were approved for the first time, but that augmentation patients should be 22 years old or older, because younger women are often not done developing. Six years ago, at a time when there was less research available, the FDA approved saline breast implants for women 18 and older. It may be that the new restrictions will also be extended to saline implants, but at this point they are not.

Logically, if the concern is about physical growth, not emotional maturity, the same age should apply for saline or silicone. However, if emotional maturity is taken into consideration, the costs of MRIs (needed to screen for rupture for silicone gel implants but not for saline) could be considered, as well as the sequelae of rupture (greater for silicone than saline) and the cost of removing ruptured implants (also greater for silicone than saline). Drzuckerman 21:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry silly typo error in my last posting re 18 vs 22, but I thought we were discussing suitable NPOV wording and what to include (still no mention of the missing other proceedures of breast lift and breast reduction not present in alternative version). Instead this has become a spill over from breast implant edit warring. Discussion of specific risks, FDA licensing and the controversy belong in the various articles' talk spaces - this talk page is more to notify project members of particular articles & their talk pages needing input, or discuss general encyclopaedic policies with regards to clinical topics. The motivies and actions of other editors and of the real-world behaviour or attitude of Plastic Surgeons (eg "Clearly there is no concern on the part of some plastic surgeons") is not something appropriate to debate here - remember WP:NOR, wikipedia is not the place to carry out debates but only to discuss how to cite from external reliable sources such real-world debates and how to then phrase wikipedia content appropriately (i.e. NPOV, quality of English prose, enecylopaedic editing considerations etc). Davidruben 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is out of frustration, David. I see no reason to address anything more on these /related articles.

Jance 02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSED ROCKER★ 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

WikiDoc ???

Sorry if I am a little late on this, but what is this site? I didn't think much of it, but their article on myocardial infarction is somewhat interesting... Not exactly what we want in wikipedia, but definitely has some good references. Ksheka 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help of a hematologist in Myocardial infarction#Thrombolytic therapy

Is there a hematologist that can lend a hand in Myocardial infarction#Thrombolytic therapy? The section needs a lot of work, and I can do most of it in the near future, including all the trial data. I just need one thing answered: Why do rtPA and related thrombolytic agents require adjuvant anticoagulation with heparinoids, while streptokinase and urokinase do not? There is an answer (I mis-remember hearing it in the past). I just don't understand it. :-) Ksheka 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With tPA and related agents heparin is needed to maintain coronary patency. Because of the anticoagulant effect of fibrinogen depletion with streptokinase treatment, it is less necessary there. --WS 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The section is looking better with that. I'll fill in references later if you don't have any on hand. Ksheka 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Image Permissions from a Med School

I've been trying to improve the microscopic anatomy/histology articles, but I've bumped into the problem that there aren't any sets of images that have been released under a free license. Many schools and companies release images over the internet, but retaining copyright. I'm meeting with the Dean of my medical school on monday to try and persuade him to let me start taking pictures myself or release some of the images they've already digitized under a free license. I've read the wikidocuments on asking for copyright permission, but I had specific questions I'd like some advice on:

Is it possible to release a lower-resolution image under GDFL while retaining a noncommercial restriction or full copyright on the full-resolution version?
The commercial use may be a sticking point. A professor made the point that they might not like other institutions getting "something for nothing" when the resources of the university were spent creating these images. How do I neutralize this argument?

Robotsintrouble 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of free (i.e. GPDL) histo stuff. One gold mine is this pathology wikibook (German) -- which also exists in a (very) lame/incomplete English version. Most stuff from the US federal government is fair game-- 'cause the Americans believe that if the taxpayer paid for it once they should not have to pay again.[9][10]

Answering your questions:

Is it possible to release a lower-resolution image under GDFL while retaining a noncommercial restriction or full copyright on the full-resolution version?

I wouldn't go there. Odds are high quality stuff exists elsewhere.

A professor made the point that they might not like other institutions getting "something for nothing" when the resources of the university were spent creating these images. How do I neutralize this argument?

They get plenty:

They can use the images others contribute and could put those together with their collection of GPDL'ed images and sell 'em.
If they create great images-- it will be free advertisement for the university as the university will be in the image credits.
Another argument is that Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare -- (see BBC NEWS - Technology - Learn for free online), which is licensed under the Creative Commons, isn't that different. If MIT does it-- why not your university?
Another tack you could take is "... are you making money off of the images currently?" If the answer is "no" -- why not share 'em and take the lead? Did you mom not tell you should share?
The government (and your tuition) pay the university's dues... why should you pay twice for images he produces? (This is basically just arguing that the above mentioned US government policy (on government created works) should be applied more widely.)

What you're up against is the thinking described in an informative Fortune Magazine article. If you read it, it might put things into more focus--the article:

Leaf, C., The Law of Unintended Consequences. Fortune Magazine. September 19, 2005. URL: Available at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272884/index.htm. Accessed: December 1, 2006.

Good luck... and let us know how it goes. Nephron T|C 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Lists

I've put in some proposal suggestions for merger of List of medical roots into Medical Prefixes, Suffixes, and Combining Forms, please go here to discuss further. David Ruben ^Talk 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jance RfC

Many who participate in this WikiProject have been involved, so I thought I would advise you of this RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance -- Samir धर्म 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very odd that Samir is doing this, after I obviously stopped posting here, and have done nothing. I am not going to participate in this. If you do, then what are your motives? As I said, Samir, your threat is ridiculous, and looks pretty vindicitive. Jance 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour has been utterly disruptive, and this RfC is a request for you to comment on the same. Clearly, you don't seem to understand that -- Samir धर्म 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

breast cancer

Is it just me or are the subsections of the breast cancer article on alcohol (with wierd tangents) & environmental causes beyond sloppy and peripheral. There is real odd 1st person voice that gets off into areas that are (at best) tertiary to a focused treatment of this topic. I would personally like to take a buzz-saw thru the bulk of many areas of it.Droliver 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes made to that section of the breast cancer article. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a startDroliver 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance - Ormeloxifene main article

I recently created the Ormeloxifene main article, but was unable to add much content due to a lack of knowledge. Ormeloxifene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator or SERM; other SERMs include tamoxifen and raloxifene.

Problems:

I don't really understand how to use the Expert-Subject template or what other ways there are to alert others of this article's existence. Is adding the template enough or must I take further action? Can you explain usage of the templates?
I can't determine which template category fits ormeloxifene; it seems it could go in Clinical Medicine or Pre-Clinical medicine. Ormeloxifene is widely used in India as birth control and as a treatment for dysfunctional uterine bleeding (see Centchroman), hence 'Clinical', but as far as I know it is little-known elsewhere, hence 'Pre-Clinical'.

Any input will be appreciated. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little work on it. Is Ormeloxifene the International Nonproprietary Name of Centchroman ? If so then wikipolicy is to generally have just the one article under the INN name (other brand names redirect to it) and information is merged into the one article. David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work, DavidRuben. I am unable to answer your question about the INN of Centchroman; I don't know, and I don't know how to find out. One source that may be helpful is the Medical Subject Heading of the NLM, in which Centchroman and Ormeloxifene each have their own entry; I am not certain whether they are exactly the same chemical. I have seen the terms used interchangably. Centchroman does not appear to be a brand name; brand names for Centchroman have included Centron, Saheli, Sevista. I don't have much more information, but I would like to find people who do. Joie de Vivre 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, centchroman == ormeloxifene (INN). I will merge the articles. --WS 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't believe you, but I am curious how you determined that these are exactly the same chemical. How does one determine the INN of a chemical? If they are the same chemical, why does the MeSH have two separate entries for ormeloxifene and centchroman? Is there any difference? If not, why do the two different names exist? Thank you for your help. Joie de Vivre 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may join the discussion, the article actually looks pretty good to me as is: how do you think it could be improved? I'll whip up a structural formula as soon as I can, and look for additional information (PK parameters, etc).
As for the INN, PubChem will usually show the INN of any chemicals which are useful as drugs (only drugs have them, other compounds do not): the PubChem entry for ormeloxifene shows it is indeed the INN and a search for centchroman shows they have the same structure. In case of a "recent" compound, the World Health Organization provides lists of all recommended and proposed INNs, with IUPAC name and structure — they are quite unwieldy and difficult to search though. Fvasconcellos 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How I found the INN name was doing a pubmed search for centchroman in the title. The INN name is mentioned directly in the abstract of the first search result (PMID 16860055). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wouterstomp (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, that was easy! Certainly clearer than my ranting "explanation"... :) Fvasconcellos 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[1] Recommendations regarding breast implants

[2] FDA article on breast implants

[1]

[2]