Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 30 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173

White pulp of spleen

Could someone with more knowledge of the spleen than me please improve the caption of File:Spleen hyaloserositis - low mag.jpg on Spleen#Pulp? Currently it says the while pulp is "blue", which is supremely unhelpful. Nothing in the image looks blue to me (nor should it, with H&E) – my guess is the white pulp is the lighter (white) areas interspersed in the red pulp. Toadspike [Talk] 18:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at this and thought that the "blue" might be the darker (purple-ish) areas. Nephron wrote that caption in 2010, but he's not on wiki much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hematoxylin does stain nuclei blue/purple, and the white pulp (a name ascribed to appearance of spleen freshly cut - wherein the open splenic sinusoids are red with RBCs, and the relatively bloodless lymphoid aggregates appear white) appears relatively blue compared with surrounding red pulp. I have edited the caption to say "blue nuclei in lighter background" (to describe the white pulp). — soupvector (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi

Could someone who knows the rules on medicine related articles please check Ayurveda (or at least the lead)? I see the article lead describes it as a 'therapy' which implies it has medical benefit.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead of Ayurveda does not contain the word therapy. Did you link the wrong article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the part of the lead that says "Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia. Therapies include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils." Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes that part, I though lead was the section before the first heading, maybe I'm wrong... John Cummings (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right; it's just that when it wasn't in the first sentence, I used ⌘F to search, and searching for therapy doesn't find therapies on the page.

People sometimes use the word modalities in such cases. It's short for treatment modalities. More generally, I question whether calling something therapy really implies medical benefit (rather than medical intent), and whether these have no medical benefit. Yoga has the medical benefit of physical exercise; ayurvedic diets tend to be plant-forward, which has medical benefits; laxatives and enemas are medical treatments; meditation is a mainstream medical recommendation for people with ADHD, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your reply, I guess my association is that if something is theraputic then it has efficacy, which is very much is confict with the first paragraphy which says "The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific and toxic metals such as lead are used as ingredients in many ayurvedic medicines". John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings from Therapy: "Not all therapies are effective. Many therapies can produce unwanted adverse effects." — soupvector (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced health claims at Humic substance

Hi folks. I just removed a couple of questionable seeming self-published sources from Humic substance. There are a bunch of health claims and similar claims there which don't seem to be reliably sourced. I don't feel like enough of an expert to critically evaluate the claims made there and don't have the time to devote to this to become knowledgeable enough about it. Can someone here with more familiarity with such topics take a look, maybe adding some sources or removing claims which seem dodgy? Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 02:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

They were originally "badly sourced". I've moved the whole mess to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

New editor using only primary sources and telling me to not "interfere" in his edits

Scientific observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow, this I think is a new one. On Talk:Mpox and elsewhere, this brand new editor is saying repeatedly [1][2][3] that I should not interefere...because [I am] biased toward [my] interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics and that the viruses [I] studied (Zika, Ebola, and Hantaviruses) are not related to poxviridae.

Funny enough, I did actually use modified Ankara-strain Vaccinia during my PhD, and did a lot of small-molecule article reviews and similar relevant experiments. lol. But let alone that this is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand of whether or not my input is warranted, and whether this user is following the WP:PAGs...

The main issue is that they are proceeding to add claims about the use of certain off-label drugs and small molecule inhibitors to different poxviridae-adjacent and other related articles (Mycophenolic acid, Mpox, Vaccinia), using only primary sources and WebMD/the FDA page for "off-label drugs". Despite the local (and global consensus) that such primary sources and irrelevant WebMD/etc are not suitable for such claims. They are also starting (and hugely expanding) a few articles with mainly primary sources Zelenirstat, IMP-1088, N-myristoyltransferase inhibitors. In and of itself, it's not an issue to be adding primary articles (which, I suspect, this user may have authored) to wikipedia. The issue is that this user is not understanding the meaning of a proper secondary source.

They also went and found a source I personally authored and removed it from the relevant article (Zika virus).

Could definitely use some outside eyes (and patience) on this one. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor just pointed out [4] on Talk:Mpox that in the 6 days since one of these journal articles was published (Witwit et al in Viruses - "Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance") one person or several people (including ([5] some Chula Vista, California and Scripps Research Institute IP addresses (192.26.252.1)) plus the above username, altogether this/these user(s) have added it as a citation to 12 different wiki articles. See Altmetric.

Overall, I'd say there's a pretty good case to be made based on the evidence that this user may be an author on the article. I've tried to caution them accordingly... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, obviously you can just ignore any assertions that you shouldn't "interfere" by engaging in ordinary editing activities. Having looked through a few edits, I hope that we are able to keep this new editor and upgrade their knowledge of what Wikipedia needs. Perhaps Wikipedia:10SIMPLERULES – Oops, that got boldly blanked and redirected away a couple of weeks ago. (The discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia#Merge and is now at Wikipedia talk:Trifecta#Collecting short-rule essays, if anyone's interested.) So perhaps you'd like to point the new editor at s:Ten Simple Rules For Editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't it also rather early for an article for his new article on the very early-stage Zelenirstat? One wonders about COI. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps a little bit early? Traditionally, we have encouraged the creation of articles about experimental drugs at Phase 2b, and I assume that the "escalation phase" mentioned is Phase 2a (dose-finding tests). It's also normal at this stage for the articles to say as much about the business side as anything else, and this doesn't mention the company's name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Methylsulfonylmethane#Medical_and_dietary_use

This section needs a severe cull to be MEDRS compliant. SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I started hacking away at it, but it needs more. On the one hand, someone has put a lot of work into assembling a comprehensive list of prior research. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia. Editors should not be writing review articles here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I jumped in and tried to help by re-organizing the medical claims using as many MED:MOS subheadings as I could with the content already shared. Hope what I did helps a little. Feel free to change it back and keep improving in different ways if you disagree! JenOttawa (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

US federal health agency communications freeze

Agencies subject to the Department of Health & Human Services directive include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this will affect the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is horrifying. Perhaps I am over reacting, but this seems like a first step in the Politicization of science within the health field. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

First? Paint me a cynic, but that bridge has long been crossed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Not the first example in the lastest presidential campaign. Trying to give the new administration the benefit of the doubt which based previous history is unjustified. Boghog (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report was not published this week. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Introduction

Hi all,

I've just realised it says at the top to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor. I'm Daphne, I'm working on becoming an experienced editor in science and medical topics. I'm currently working towards getting Hashimoto's Thyroiditis up to an appropriate level to submit for good article review, which I intend to do once I've drawn a diagram comparing healthy and hashimotos histological features. I would appreciate any tips if you have them. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, Daphne! Thank you for introducing yourself. Your contributions to thyroid hormone articles are appreciated, and your significant expansion of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis is impressive. I will share my comments on Talk:Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It is great to have you here Daphne Morrow! JenOttawa (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC regarding water fluoridation

Dear all, you are kindly invited to participate in the RfC here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Notable page in need of updating

Hello, I made some edits today to Dermatomyositis, but it still needs some work. The citations I added have a lot more information in them and can be used to update much more of the page. I mainly focused on updating the Causes section. If anyone's interested in helping bring a high-impact page up to date with recent research and consensus (it wasn't even described as an autoimmune disease before my revision) this is the page for ya. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Effects of human sexual promiscuity

Just reverted (diff) several edits by a new IP editor at Effects of human sexual promiscuity, which is (mercifully) an orphan. Too many problems to enumerate, but lets start with whether we should have a page about this topic, and whether the medical primary sources added recently (now reverted) were chiefly to give it an air of scientific respectability, or what exactly is going on there. (I think IP's inclusion of the Heritage Foundation as a source gives some insight on that, maybe not the full story.) Maybe the best tack is just to leave it alone and hope it stays an orphan? Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Or merge it to Promiscuity? There are obvious health effects (e.g., greater risk of exposure to STIs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Anoscopy, proctoscopy, rectoscopy

Some sources seem to treat these as distinct investigations based on the length of the instrument, but the terms also seem to be somewhat interchangeable in other sources, and the choice of term seems somewhat arbitrary. On wiki the latter 2 are already dealt with on the same page. Maybe we should merge the former too. Thoughts? Moribundum (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that one of these terms is in more common use than the others Moribundum (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

!!! Destructive editing of Crohn's disease !!!

Please take a look at this page. It (previously a GA) was rewritten in full by a single person several months ago, and the current version has severe problems. Most of the page is reliant on only two citations, and spot checks of these citations fail. Major discussions of the topic, such as the medication that was generally considered first-line until recently, are completely missing.

This is a major medical topic with well over 100,000 page views per month, so I think speed should be a priority here. I personally think a reversion to the article revision before the destructive editing began, if possible, would be best. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's the diff. The previous version was significantly out of date (e.g., sources from 20+ years ago). There's also been a Wikipedia:Peer review/Crohn's disease/archive2 of the new content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Went ahead and did the reversion after comparing. Despite a large chunk of cites being out of date, the newer version was too unbalanced and left more gaps in the page. Given concerns raised in that peer review and on the talk page, without the contributor (or anyone else) actually arguing to retain the page, I interpreted most people as neutral or supporting the revert. @WhatamIdoing

It does still need some work though, you're right. I have a long plane flight soon, perhaps I can bring it up to speed. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

agree with reverting to long standing version, and agree current version can-of-beans did is the long standing version.

honest question (and i think ive seen it brought up before around village pump), how long does a version of an article have to stick around to become the long-standing version? apparently the other version was up for 4 months without anyone noticing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, lots of people noticed. There was a prior thread at this project and also some stuff on the article's talk page. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Blue, the more relevant question would be: What makes you think that matters? WP:QUO isn't a policy or guideline, and it doesn't say what most editors think it says. Fights over which version is The True™ Long-Standing Version are usually just a way to say that the version I prefer is the one that ought to be kept, and the version that you prefer is Not It.

See also m:The Wrong Version. Sometimes, all the versions are the wrong version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

fair enough.

seen folks throw the "long standing version" idea around a bit, and i've used the phrase myself. thanks for the insight around what that phrase actually means. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You are correct: We do talk this way.

QUO's goal is just to avoid an edit war while discussions are going on. For the most part, if an article was "like that" for the weeks/months/years before the attempt to improve it, then having it be wrong for a few more days is less damaging than having an edit war.

It should also not be taken as an absolute. Once upon a time, I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with a relative newcomer. The newcomer only participated in the discussion when we reverted to the disputed version. So for perhaps a week, the daily process was to see what they said yesterday, reply to what they said yesterday, and revert the article to the version they disliked. Then they would revert back and post a comment in the discussion. If we didn't revert, they didn't discuss. Our slow-motion edit war was necessary to make the discussion happen. (These days, we'd probably seek a partial block instead.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Immune complex deposition

Hi there! Could we have someone come join the RFD for Immune complex deposition? I'm wondering what the best target might be and am not sufficiently confident in my ability to sort through medical texts to see how the best target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sex and intelligence and WP:MEDRS

Would any editors like to clarify if statements relating Biological sex and Intelligence should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, in-line with what is currently expected at Talk:Intelligence quotient?

I would like to remove current primary sources and other non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources from Sex and intelligence (at least when they are being used to back claims about sex and intelligence), while another users believes it would be more neutral to for us to consider the body of literature as a whole ourselves, including primary research articles, and to summarize them here on Wikipedia. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If a primary source hasn't been considered interesting or important enough to get picked up by any secondary source, then the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is best achieved by omitting it. There are occasional exceptions (e.g., a study too recent to be reported), but as a general rule, neutrality is achieved by having reliable sources do the part about "considering the body of literature as a whole". It might be better to look for a graduate-level textbook chapter instead of trying to pick a review article.

With a brief glance over there, it looks like editors need to correct WP:MEDSAY violations as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Also, I hadn't seen WP:MEDSAY, that is good to know for this article as well as going forward. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to point out that the article series on sex and various features have been in violation of MEDRS since at least 2014. I think they could do with some reworking, and yes I believe MEDRS should apply to a large extent. CFCF (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

tuberculosis/kansas

• per https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/major-tuberculosis-outbreak-hits-kansas-city-area-2025-01-29/ we may need an artilce on this(as its one of the largest outbreaks ever)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  For those not familiar with the geography, the Kansas City metropolitan area straddles the dividing line between Kansas and Missouri. The outbreak "in Kansas" is associated with a significant outbreak in Missouri as well, but it's mostly within one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  On 3 January it was reported that,"after the CDC refuted that,[it was one of the largest ever] a state health official offered clarification, claiming this outbreak has seen the country’s highest case numbers over a one-year period"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Requested move at Talk:ASD#Requested move 30 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ASD#Requested move 30 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hypertensive crisis infobox image

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at File:227 over 93 hypertension.jpg just added to the infobox of Hypertensive crisis. It seems OK for a copyright standpoint and the uploader also seems to mean well. Is it, though, the best image for the infobox from an encyclopedic standpoint. That's an assessment that probably should be made by user more familiar with medical related articles and the standards associated with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, apart from being slightly blurry, I think it is nearly ideal. It is a difficult to illustrate concept otherwise. CFCF (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Opinions needed re anal sex as a cause of fecal incontinence

Hello please see Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Kumar_2017_review to give opinion Moribundum (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For TLDR editors, my general feeling is that because research on anal sex and fecal incontinence remains limited, mention of this should be kept relatively brief on the article. In contrast, Moribundum has proposed a rather large body of text with detailed explanations of individual studies. I'm not opposed to including what they wrote, but I also think it verges into WP:TEXTBOOK. Other editor input on the discussion would be appreciated. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Users should be directed to the conversation immediately above the discussion provided by Moribundum: Talk:Fecal incontinence#Anal sex section Zenomonoz (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A request for comment is just supposed to be a link and a neutral statement. I was actually mainly wanting opinions regarding how the Kumar source should be used, but sure give opinion about the section as a whole if you want. I responded re length of section on that talk page in the interests of not splitting discussion. Moribundum (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

MEDRS infographic

If you are interested in infographics about MEDRS or other sourcing requirements, you might be able to give useful advice at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I have posted a draft alternative format for the diagram there. Daphne Morrow (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have posted a new draft of the diagram explaining MEDRS there; I would appreciate feedback if anyone's interested :) Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine FRINGE RFC

There is currently an RFC on whether the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is WP:FRINGE taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~59 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

1. Bhopal disaster
2. Breastfeeding difficulties
3. Health effects of electronic cigarettes
4. History of autism
5. Menstrual suppression
6. Mental health in Russia
7. Mental health in the Philippines
8. Miklós Nyiszli
9. Motor skill
10. National Canine Research Council
11. National Institutes of Health
12. Neue Deutsche Heilkunde
13. Nursing home care in the United Kingdom
14. Nursing shortage in Canada
15. Omsk State Medical University
16. Osteitis fibrosa cystica
17. Otoplasty
18. Paclitaxel
19. Pain management during childbirth
20. Paravertebral block
21. Parkinson's disease
22. Patient participation
23. Perfectionism (psychology)
24. Plague doctor costume
25. Plasma Economy
26. Prenatal cocaine exposure
27. Progeria
28. Psychedelia
29. Psychedelic music
30. Psychiatric assessment
31. Psychiatry
32. Psychopathy Checklist
33. Pyromania
34. Respirator
35. Scintillating scotoma
36. Seizure types
37. Self-harm
38. Serum protein electrophoresis
39. Small intestine cancer
40. Smoking and pregnancy
41. Socioeconomic status
42. Spinal cord injury
43. Stiff-person syndrome
44. Stomach cancer
45. Straitjacket
46. Stuttering
47. Thalamic reticular nucleus
48. Thrombosis prevention
49. Thrombosis
50. Traditional healers of Southern Africa
51. Transgenerational trauma
52. Ultrasonography of chronic venous insufficiency of the legs
53. Unethical human experimentation
54. United States Public Health Service
55. Urban legends about drugs
56. Ureterovaginal fistula
57. Vulvoplasty
58. Western pattern diet
59. White blood cell differential

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Around half way done. Velayinosu (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed another. I haven't installed the script; I just searched for {{harv and {{sfn in the wikitext. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease is particularly problematic; I raised the issue at the (current) GA nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Only 3 remain. The no-target error on "Mental health in Russia" is ref 56, which is to a Russia Today reference that was removed with this edit[6] because RT is deprecated. I skipped "Parkinson's disease" since it seems like others are working on that article. And the no-target error on "Thrombosis prevention" is ref 23 (Lilley), but I'm not sure what this reference is. The sfns were added in this edit[7] without a full reference. Velayinosu (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that is a prior version of this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Face masks during COVID-19 article tagging

Comments from experienced WP:MEDRS-familiar editors are requested at Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#NIOSH's_1992_method_for_determining_the_effectiveness_of_resporators_as_a_"public_health_exposure_control_method", especially Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Proposal_to_remove_article_tag. Additional background can be found at Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Removal_Deemphasis_of_RCT_mask_studies_in_progress and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_251#Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic. Much appreciated as this has been a long-running dispute with a particular editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is specifically about the destruction of funding for US medical research, not sure where to put it

NIH caps "indirect research costs" at 15%, potentially surrendering decades of US dominance in medical research. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That headline sounds more like "the destruction of the Research university", as those "indirect costs" pay the university administration and overhead (e.g., cleaning the lab). If anyone wants to write about it, then a WPMED editor created Indirect costs many years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Some disturbing reading about the "destruction" of funding for US medical research (see Charles Piller, Cassava Sciences and Sylvain Lesné:

• https://www.economist.com/culture/2025/02/05/have-doctors-been-wrong-about-how-to-treat-alzheimers-disease
• https://www.thetransmitter.org/science-and-society/doctored-fraud-arrogance-and-tragedy-in-the-quest-to-cure-alzheimers-an-excerpt/
• https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/04/undisclosed-conflicts-lightning-fast-peer-review-one-alzheimers-journals-role-in-a-failed-drug/
• https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/doctored-book-excerpt/
• https://www.bookpage.com/reviews/doctored-charles-piller-book-review/

There's also a New York Times and Wall Street Journal entry, but paywalled. Piller makes a case that a lot of money has been wasted in Alzheimer's research, and implies that may be a reason solutions have lagged other diseases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Double checking: Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source

My understanding is that Science-Based Medicine is a MEDRS reliable source. Is that correct? Thanks! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a case of "it depends". It's typically accepted as WP:PARITY for fringe theories, and as reliable for comments with WP:INTEXT attribution on a journal. But you shouldn't be using it to support basic medical content (e.g., what's a normal blood pressure?). See WP:SBM for a summary and (perhaps more importantly) for links to prior discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Patient Safety in Nigeria

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and have created an article titled Patient Safety in Nigeria - Wikipedia. Suggestion(s) on how to improve the article will be appreciated.

Thank you. Oye2633 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Oye2633, some parts of this article appear to be Persuasive writing (certain "Efforts need to be" made, we have some "Recommended strategies"). An encyclopedia article should be plain description: This happened (or is happening). This resulted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Cytotron

The Cytotron, a device made by a company Shreis Scalene Sciences has been in the news recently because of a fictionalised Netflix film, Lucca's World. Depending on who you listen to, the Cytotron, and its near-namesake the Neurocytotron from a Mexican company called Neurocytonix, both of which seem to be based on "Rotational Field Quantum Magnetic Resonance", are either a revolutionary new treatment for a variety of conditions including cancer, cerebral palsy and even autism... or just pseudoscience.[8]

Searching for "RFQMR" finds we already have a User:Cytotron, and a mention in List of megaprojects in India (which I will remove in a moment).

There is a whole lot about this from PR release republishers, but very little about any of this in WP:RS. This seems to me the sort of topic WP:MED should be taking a look at, one way or the other. — The Anome (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Autism and biomedical vs neurodiversity views

More medical editors are likely needed at Autism. As seen in this talk page section, an editor is arguing that the article should be tagged "unbalanced" for giving too much weight to medical views based on, among other things, a survey they ran. There's also an ongoing Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion (linked therein). This same editor wrote a lengthy userpage essay, also published elsewhere, against Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, so there seems to be a concerted push to alter coverage in this area. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

An RFC is already being planned.

My impression is that the existing article is outdated (e.g., it cites some sources from the previous century) and generally in poor shape. The suggested change is partly updates, partly the addition of viewpoints (e.g., autism as a personal identity and a source of positive experiences), and partly to use more positive-sounding language.[1]

I can image three basic categories of responses: The article is a mess now, and it should be updated and remain rooted in the biomedical model; the article is a mess now, and it should be converted primarily to a social model of disability and an identity orientation when it gets update; and it's such a mess now that any improvement would be welcome, regardless of POV.

If you are even slightly interested in this subject, please skim over the article and put the page on your watchlist so you can see when the RFC appears.

[1] Examples of wording options:

• Lots of people have both autism and generalized anxiety disorder; are these conditions "comorbid" or "co-occurring"?
• Does autism have medical-sounding "symptoms" or non-medical-sounding "characteristics" and "features"?
• Do autistic people have a "risk" of developing epilepsy, or do that have a higher "likelihood" of developing epilepsy?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing - what a nice summary! Balanced, succinct, informative, and as someone moderately involved in the DRN discussions, I find myself feeling more optimistic and motivated to stay involved. As we say in the South (U.S.), I appreciate you. (The proper Southern pronunciation of the verb is: ah-preee-shee-ate ;^) Cheers! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)