Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic coverage of topics, it would be nice to have a place we can identify articles that need work, even though they may not be selected for the Collaboration. I'm going to try to begin to organize it, though I'm not entirely certain how. I don't know if this will stay here or what its final home will be, but since intend to include both clinical and pre-clinical topics, it didn't make sense to place it at either one, nor does it really fit at WP:MCOTW either. The design comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the project. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, there are just too many articles to deal with in this fashion. I am now thinking that something like the lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization would be more feasible, although it require the assistance and discussion of others to generate the lists. We could have the 50 most imporant diseases, anatomical parts, medicines, topics about medicine (like residency), medical specialties, preclinical fields, biochemical molecules, pathogenic organisms, and so on. I have to ponder this overnight. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started creating the lists I thought were most important, and threw a couple entries on each one. The topics are biased towards internal medicine, since that's my specialty and it seems that the participants on WP:MCOTW tend to tackle articles in that field too. Physicians and others with expertise in other areas are free to add topics relating to their fields (for instance, a table on surgical procedures such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy, pneumonectomy, and so on). Please feel free to add items to the lists, or modify/remove my suggestions—I put them up mainly to give a feel for the direction I intended for each list, but of course that is open to debate as well. Once we get a better idea what items will be on the lists, we can start rating articles. I especially would like to ensure that topics commonly linked to from medical or other articles (such as fever) are well-written. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave any feedback here, including comments, suggestions, or criticism. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful to divide diseases into general and specific diseases. I think that a single editor has a much easier time really improving something specific like rheumatoid arthritis whereas a general disease category such as arthritis works best with a lot of input. Might help us decide on future collaborations, as well. InvictaHOG 13:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started something similair just a few days ago at my user page. I added all diseases to the list here. Most come from list of common diseases. It is a lot more than 50 now, but I think it would be impossible to choose the 50 most important ones. Two more ideas: it would be nice to keep a table with statistics for tracking the progress, like on the chemicals list's talk page. Also a list of diseases that don't have an article yet would be nice (all the red links on list of diseases). --WS 17:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for embracing this project and for your suggestions. InvictaHOG, I think that is a great idea; one shorter list could have topics like arthritis, cardiovascular disease, infection, and so on, and another would have the more specific diseases. Wouterstomp, thanks for all that work you put in adding those diseases—that'll really help! I do think that we should limit it to 50, though; part of the purpose of this project, like the purpose of the Collaboration, is to help us prioritize/find direction—a sea of links can be overwhelming. How about this: we'll keep one list of just 50, and then have a secondary list with all the rest. I don't mind trying to prune it down to 50—it's a lot easier than trying to think of which ones to add, so you've really helped out. I only fear that it'd reflect my biases, so feel free to switch around any of my selections; I'm not the dictator here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Knowledge Seeker! Edwardian 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Would it make any sense to change the navigation template, Template:WPCM navigation, to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine under the parent Project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine? Edwardian 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Since Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week is primarily a collaboration of editors involved in those three Projects, would it make sense to move the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week? Edwardian 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. And rather have participants listed at all three projects, would it make sense to move Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration and the various participant lists to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants? It would serve as a nice summary page so that participants could list their areas of interest, articles they've been working on, the primary sub-Project they are interested in, etc. there. Edwardian 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Does anyone think it would be wise idea to move the articles listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, then delete the former page? There appear to be many "Things to do" pages related to medicine/clinical medicine and a merge/delete of Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority would help streamline the project a bit. Edwardian 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments, Edwardian. The template change might not be a bad idea. I hesitate to make any change like that because I don't want to step on anyone's toes by creating a WikiProject that "governs" another—I don't intend this project to control or limit the clinical and pre-clinical projects in any way, but it has a different scope. I think the change is fine if others agree, as long as it's clear that this project shouldn't really affect the way the "child" projects conduct their business. The participants list sounds great; I'll work on setting that up maybe tomorrow. I'll move MCOTW here as well. Finally, moving the articles sounds fine to me; even if all don't have a category list, we can keep some miscellaneous articles at the end. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...there are way too many pages linking to the old MCOTW page. I tried updating all the important ones, but if anyone so desires, he can go through and update the other links =) otherwise I'll get to it later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a lot of article from Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority to here. Perhaps someone else can finish off the twenty or so there that remain. Edwardian 07:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged all the articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. There's nothing of importance left there, so I'm going to redirect the former to the latter. Hope this won't be a problem for anyone. Edwardian 04:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page will be very helpful. Great idea! By the way, it seems to me that many medical articles use far too many technical terms without explaining them. We who work in medical fields need to strive to make medical articles understandable to a non-medical audience, while keeping those same articles accurate. Let's avoid unnecessary medical jargon! Rewster 06:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon should not be eliminated, it should be explained. Articles become hellish to read when the technical terms are all replaced with imprecise layisms. Try replacing ischemia with "decreased supply of oxygen-rich blood" in myocardial infarction. Also, wikilinks enable readers to understand technical terms by opening the relevant page.

I'm all for accessibility, but not at the expense of style, flow of text, and accuracy. JFW | T@lk 08:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:0815hB.png File:0814hB.png

Glad you brought up the topic of priority articles. These are my priority articles. I'm going to update them on my user page instead of here. Feel free to check them out if you want a different perspective.

To be meaningful, the list needs to embrace three concepts:

1) Traditional western medicine 2) Actual world-wide health care usage 3) Future world-wide trends.

Challenging, yes. But if you twist your mind the right way, it’s doable. Below is the way that works for me.--FloNight 08:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think of each aspect of health and health care as a social phenomena. Explicitly embrace multiple methods of categorizing each health phenomena. Consider each as the function of:

• Health state
• Human developmental stage
• Place of service
• Human plan of action
• Human biological system
• Causative agent
• Cultural and social event

1. Alcoholism*
2. Allergy*
3. Alzheimer's Disease*
4. Anemia*
5. Antibiotics*
6. Antipsychotic drugs*
7. Asepsis*
8. Asthma*
9. Autism*
10. Birth defects*
11. Birth Registration*
12. Bloodborne illness*
13. Blood transfusion*
14. Breastfeeding*
15. Cancer*
16. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation*
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention**
18. Cerebrovascular disease*
19. Cesarean section*
20. Childbirth*
21. Clinical Specimens*
22. Contraception*
23. Dehydration*
24. Diabetes mellitus*
25. Diagnostic imaging
26. Diarrheal diseases*
27. Disability*
28. Environmental sample*
29. Epidemiology*
30. Episiotomy*
31. Evidence-based health care*
32. Family health history*
33. Family planning*
34. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome*
35. Fetal diagnosis*
36. Folic Acid Awareness program**
37. Food and Drug Act*
38. Foodborne illness*
39. Genotoxic*
40. Hazardous substance*
41. Health*
42. Health literacy*
43. Health surveillance*
44. Heart-lung machine*
45. HIV/AIDS*
46. Hospice*
47. Hospital*
48. Hypertension*
49. Illness*
50. Infant mortality*
51. Infectious diseases*
52. Infertility*
53. Injury, (accidental or intentional)*
54. Injury, Motor Vehicle Crash**
55. Intensive Care*
56. In vitro fertilization*
57. Iodized salt*
58. Life expectancy*
59. Maternal death*
60. Magnesium sulfate*
61. Malaria*
62. Medical imaging*
63. Medical records*
64. Mental disorders*
65. meta-analysis*
66. Nuclear medicine
67. Nosocomial Infection*
68. Occupational health care
69. Oral health
70. Organ transplant*
71. Oxytocin*
72. Palliative care*
73. Pap smear*
74. Pregnancy Loss*
75. Pneumonia*
76. Post coital contraception*
77. Pregnancy*
78. Pregnancy-related death*
79. Preeclampsia*
80. Prenatal care*
81. Preterm birth*
82. Public health*
83. Scientific approach*
84. Schizophrenia*
85. Sexually transmitted disease*
86. Skilled health personnel*
87. Sterilization, surgical*
88. Substance abuse*
89. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome*
90. Surgical procedure*
91. Tandem mass spectrometry*
92. Toxicology*
93. Toxicological profile*
94. Traditional birth attendant*
95. Tuberculosis*
96. Ultrasound, diagnostic*
97. Undernourishment*
98. Well-child check-up*
99. Women, Infants and Children (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for)**
100. World Health Organization*
101. X-ray, diagnostic*

Hi, just thought I'd ask here. From Wikipedia:Neglected articles I saw Fossa navicularis, and while I checked that the article is correct, I have a hard time believing that can ever be more than a dicdef. I have two anatomy textbooks in front of me and neither had anything more to add than was in the article. I'm fairly sure it was added solely for the sophmoric humor value, but should it be merged somewhere, expanded, or just sent to afd? Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many anatomy terms are like this. I envision that each will have a nice image and a description of pathology associated with it. This article can be expanded in that way and should probably stay a stub until someone adds information about strictures, etc. Just my opinion, of course! InvictaHOG 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A number of those can easily be merged with parent structures; the fossa navicularis article can be merged with urethra with no loss of information, as strictures can happen anywhere in the urethra. Similarly, all those processes on the femur should not have independent articles but be discussed in femur. JFW | T@lk 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a bit of a wikibreak, great to see above discussions re formation and merging of 'to do list' of articles. I've had a go at the red-'stub' flagged Menorrhagia, and whilst I have greatly expanded the topic, I'm unclear whether it now counts as blue-'good'. The yellow-'needs exp/org/NPOV' suggests only just better than a stub, and I take mild offense :-) at the thought that it needs further significant expansion. The white-'needs opinion' is apparently if the 'article has not yet been classified' - however, I would appreciate the comments & input of others... Some guidence please anyone, and I'll happily try updating the list without messing it up :-) David Ruben^talk 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, you forgot about the orange which is little better than a stub; the yellow is beyond that. Nevertheless, I think Menorrhagia is "good" and have so upgraded it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wikipedia:Userboxes are rather silly, and yet they're strangely amusing as well. On a whim, I created {{user physician}} which you may place on your user page if you so desire. It will automatically place you in Category:Physician Wikipedians as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's {{user doctor}} as well. Enjoy! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, of course, there's {{user surgeon}} --Mattopaedia 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about one for WikiProject:Medicine itself? --Eilu 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User MPH or User CHES, anyone?

Hi there; I'm a registered Dietician/Dietitian, and i've started a project, WikiProject Nutrition (and dietetics) but unfortunately, few people are joining because of the lack of knowledge of it. If i'd be able to merge the project into yours, then i'd be ecstatic as this sis just something i'd love to contribute to. Anyway, thank you for reading!

The magical Spum-dandy 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd certainly consider nutrition to be part of the broad field of medicine. It's fine with me to merge, although I don't know how you intend any technical details to occur. You may prefer WP:CLINMED, since this is more of an umbrella project for that and the preclinical medicine group. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a peer review request for Keratoconus to Template:MCOTWannounce. If anyone would like to contribute to the peer review, it would be very welcome! BillC 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder needs to be checked. I doubt that the article presents a neutral point of view: the statement that "small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy might not pose a risk to the fetus" has disappeared. the article also lists links like this [1] --Melaen 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs work; sources need to be cited and more internal links added. Should I append this to "Medicine Topics" in the project page? --Eilu 03:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've updated your list, and the edit summary says it all. Congratulations, you're the most productive WikiProject in Wikipedia, on basis of listed featured and A-Class articles. I'll try to keep your WikiProject table up to date, but please feel free to update it as you assess articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm sorry I've been pretty busy in real life, and have been neglecting medicine articles in lieu of another major undertaking on Wikipedia right now, but I do intend to try to get more articles up to speed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little mediation from some other healthcare professionals is required here, we seem to be somewhat at loggerheads. Basically, User:Nescio has redirected cardiac arrest to cardiogenic shock, which (in my opinion and I'm pretty sure most other emergency/critical care specialists') is incorrect. I reverted once, but Nescio reverted back again, and we've been having a bit of a debate on the talk page ever since. --John24601 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion located here.Correct, the two conditions IMHO overlap and are so similar that merging is better than having two seperate articles. And other than that, cardiac arrest was poorly written and mentions hypovolumic, distributive, endocrine and obstructive shock without making clear that it is discussing shock. Beyond that, one has to wonder if mentioning these types of shock is warranted, why is incorporating it in cardiogenic shock such a bad idea.

However, I do admit I might have been somewhat too BOLD. Nomen Nescio 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look around but haven't found where to put this or if it's already there... All these medical entries are pretty good, but people can be easily influenced so you/we must add to the template for any medicine/diseaso/disorder a disclaimer stating something like 'A qualified physician should be consulted if you believe you have this condition/ before using this medicine' I have in mind HD for example, where someone at risk may read the article, and believe they have all the facts, but really need to seek professional advice ( well until the info is perfect that is ;) ) Leevanjackson 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked to at the bottom of each page, says "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area. See Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer for specific disclaimers", and Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer spells it out in a bit more detail. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly it, but it's not very obvious, I guess leave it to users own intelligence? Leevanjackson 12:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I have a request for the members of this project. I recently wrote the article Michael Woodruff which I am trying to bring up to Featured Article Status. It is currently undergoing a peer review that need s more input. I would especially like input from people with a medical perspective, so if some of you could look it over and participate in the review, that would be fantastic. Thanks! Cool3 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robinow syndrome is brand new, and I would like to get it to Did you know within the allotted time frame of five days since its creation. Before I list it, however, I was wondering if some of the people at this Wikiproject could give the article a quick glance. It's a relatively bare bones article, but it's better than nothing. I'd hate to stick inaccuracies on the front page, however. Thanks! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone here have the expertise to be able to merge Pelvic floor and Pelvic diaphragm? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Pelvic floor. Still needs improvement, though.... Rewster 21:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks. Hopefully someone down the line will improve it later... Carcharoth 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the members of this project please weigh in on Category talk:Deaths by throat cancer? Also, what is the status of the requested merge between throat cancer and head and neck cancer? Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone competent in chemotherapy have a look at Zosuquidar trihydrochloride? Thearticle appear to be a very poor translation from advertizing in another language. Despite my clean-up, it could use someone's attention. Circeus 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]