Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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.

List of archives

Add an Etymology parameter to infobox medical condition?[edit]

As above, suggestion/discussion here: Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Etymology thanks Little pob (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for post --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The label Named after has now been added to {{infobox medical condition}}. It will accept the parameters |named after= and |eponym=. Feel free to add to any articles you know as being eponymous. (Already added to Parkinson's disease, Down syndrome, and Alzheimer's disease.) Little pob (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical claim at British Pakistanis[edit]

Would someone with more expertise on medical studies be able to assess the claim added in this edit to British Pakistanis ("British Pakistani couples are 10 times as likely to birth children with genetic defects than all other ethnic groups in the general UK populace") and whether it's justified based on the source cited? Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm - the ultimate source here is a rather small primary study on a Derbyshire health authority in 2002 - I think it was 53 Pakistani heritage children with genetic defects in the group. But there is other research - this 2015 paper summarizes a lot of it. Some form of the rather scary figures should go in the article. It is a very sensitive issue, with some in the community pushing strongly for recognition, and others very intent on ignoring or hiding it (the 2015 paper covers both views). Someone better qualified than me should work out how best to summarize the state of research. But it is clear from the 2015 paper that awareness of the issue is low among many who would potentially be affected. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As is often the case, the Relative risk is probably not the best way to present scary figures. The absolute risk is given in the 2015 paper that Johnbod linked (2–3% for unrelated couples and 4–6% for consanguineous couples (Cousin marriage, from the looks of it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cordless Larry has used this section to justify removing all material on the topic at the article. I don't think this is what we are saying here. Ideally someone should craft a few sentences on the issue, fully referenced. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I haven't. What I did was revert an editor who was repeatedly adding the material against consensus, telling them to discuss it on the article's talk page instead. On the talk page, I linked to this discussion so that they were aware of it. Unfortunately they've since been blocked as a sockpuppet. The rest of the section remains in place and I agree that a non-blocked editor should probably add to this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excitement at Clobenzorex[edit]


Hi all--I'd like it if some of you could have a look at the recent history of the article and the dispute on the talk page, including the history of that talk page. I posted already at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Dispute_at_Talk:Clobenzorex and Tryptofish suggested I post here also; you may be interested in their remarks. Thanks so much: I believe some article improvement can help settle whatever that dispute is about. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This amphetamine prodrug is legal in Mexico, so a Spanish speaker with a couple of hours to look for sources might be helpful.
There are also some unfortunate allegations of COI (e.g., telling people on other websites that it's safe to import) that, if true, would suggest that the article might need to be on a lot more watchlists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tea component theanine and its putative cognitive effects[edit]

Theanine is a 1-2% constituent of dried green tea leaves, is sold as a dietary supplement (~250 mg), and may act alone or combined with caffeine in tea or supplements to improve alertness, reaction time, and other cognitive effects.

A sentence in the theanine article states that theanine and caffeine combined produce 5 cognitive effects, such as "faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, and faster numeric working memory reaction time", with 7 primary sources (each with n < 50 published 11-15 years ago) supporting the statement.

Issues raised with this sentence:

  • the combined effects of theanine and caffeine stated in the sentence do not allow understanding of theanine by itself - the object of the article.
  • 4 of the 7 primary sources were included in a 2014 review ("Camfield") which one editor refuses to use. The review does not synthesize clearly what the cognitive effects of theanine in isolation are.
  • the Camfield review states that "there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analysis on the effects of L-theanine in isolation", while one small 2008 study found no effect of theanine alone on alertness (250 mg), and another in 2008 reported improved alertness 2 hrs after ingestion of theanine by itself (200 mg).
  • a 2021 review in Cureus was proposed as the most authoritative review on theanine's cognitive effects. This review concludes that combined theanine and caffeine improve several cognitive measures, while theanine itself showed minor improvements in a cognitive test (from one 2008 primary source). Cureus remains as a red flag source on WP:CITEWATCH, and is not MEDLINE-indexed.

What do medical editors think of this sentence ("faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy") in the theanine article, the use of 7 primary sources to support it, and absence of conclusive evidence from two reviews on the cognitive effects of theanine in isolation?

Should the review(s) be used to make a statement that the putative cognitive effects of theanine alone have not been established, as only a few primary studies have been conducted and not replicated or reviewed with firm conclusions since their publication more than a decade ago? - an unsatisfying, unencyclopedic statement for the general user, imho. Perhaps it's better to eliminate the existing sentence with only primary sources, and say nothing at this point of such limited research. Zefr (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If everyone did decent research and got clear results, it would be much easier to write some of these articles. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Having claims sourced to a shopping list of old primary sources and dodgy journals (Cureus? seriously?) was not great. I just expunged it. From a quick look, there just isn't any decent sourcing on the effects of theanine supplements on brain power. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This already in progress WP:DRN#Theanine. — Invasive Spices (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we have Dispute resolution and a Reliable sources noticeboard post, neither of which were in favor of these additions based on marginal and primary sources, [1] [2] and yet today we have another addition of content from a WP:CITEWATCH, MDPI, non-PUBMED indexed source. [3] I've been watchlisting now for several days, and it seems we need more eyes before this ends up in topic bans.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rotator cuff tear#Requested move 11 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MED Newsletter[edit]

It's back. This month's issue is below. I won't be posting these to WT:MED to avoid spamming those who don't care, so if you'd like to receive this fine monthly missive, add your username to the delivery list.

WikiProject Med Newsletter - Issue 21 - June 2023
WHO Rod.svg
Issue 21—June 2023

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:

Recognized content (since January 1!)

Trinidad Arroyo nom. Thebiguglyalien, reviewed by Mike Christie
Mycobacterium nom. BluePenguin18, reviewed by Ealdgyth

Nominated for review

Hanhart syndrome nom. Etriusus, under review by Dancing Dollar
Persistent stapedial artery nom. X750
Howard Florey nom. Hawkeye7
History of penicillin nom. Hawkeye7
Cataract surgery nom. Pbsouthwood
COVID-19 pandemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa, under review by Shibbolethink
Mohamed Hamad Satti nom. FuzzyMagma
El Hadi Ahmed El Sheikh nom. FuzzyMagma
Mansour Ali Haseeb nom. FuzzyMagma
Sinus tarsi syndrome for peer review by Pear1020


  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
  • Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Dengue fever are featured articles that need updating. Feel free to chime in at the talk pages or WT:MED if you have the time/bandwidth to help update. They'll likely go to featured article review for more feedback in the near(ish) future (probably in the order listed).

Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

If folks have thoughts, feedback, or ideas for the newsletter feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter (or in this thread). Enjoy. Ajpolino (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a good opportunity for me to post an update on our 2023 reference campaign. Please sign up! Points are retroactive, even if you sign up late.
Looking at the leaderboard, it appears that our current winners are JenOttawa, SomeoneOK, and V3ganf3lix, who have added a total (net) 331 refs to WPMED-tagged articles so far this year. (Only inline citations using ref tags are counted, and re-use is counted the same as a separate source.) At the other end of the leaderboard, Firefangledfeathers, Julius Senegal, and Ajpolino are leading the "defense against the dark arts" group, having removed 262 more refs than they have added to WPMED-tagged articles. We need both the addition of good refs as well as the removal of inappropriate ones, so I offer congratulations and thanks to both of these groups.
Joining the contest should take less than a minute. (The password is qyoufwds if it asks you to enter it separately.) Once you sign up, everything else is automatic. It's really quick and easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I've been trying to do my part in cleaning up... this mess... and I came across the page green nail syndrome. It looks to me like "" is some kind of fly-by-night aggregator site that fails WP:MEDRS, but it's cited repeatedly. There's also something from an osteopathy group, a nail-makeup magazine... The page could use attention. XOR'easter (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

did a few edits[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article needs some serious attention (probably nuking large amounts of content). There are huge numbers of citations to:

  • a dubious Indian journal

This article is a good example of why we have MEDRS, and when we need to act. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've excoriated most of the dubious sources, flagged some that aren't egregious uses, and now the article needs to be properly cited.[6] As it turned out, I only nuked two bits of content that looked potentially harmful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't appear useful to post to the student editor who added all that (Special:Contributions/Sm999), but I do wonder why it stood for three years. This is another apt example, reinforcing #Discussion about Healthline at RSN raised by Zefr; with all good intentions, a student editor chunked up an article based on garbage sourcing when good sources are available, and now multiple editors have to go in and fix what could have been done correctly from the get-go if something had stopped the student editor from using those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I glanced over the article, and I did a quick search for sources. I didn't spot anything in the article that was obviously wrong. (The bit about keeping nails dry, for example, could be cited to any number of proper sources.) Sources are IMO a means to an end. If the article content is correct, then fixing it seems less important (more "cosmetic", perhaps?) than the ones where the article content is incorrect or outdated.
Also, there's a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT issue: if someone got the information from a less-than-MEDRS-ideal source, then it can be useful for subsequent editors to see that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I ended up deleting very little text, as most of it can probably be cited. But I don't think Wikipedia needs to be hosting non-reliable medical websites (which may contain dubious info) as long as we preserve the content that doesn't seem problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other editors object to hosting uncited material even when they're pretty certain that it's correct. Consider, e.g., this edit, which blanked more than half of an article, including photos and other material that we normally wouldn't cite, because citations weren't added to apparently correct information fast enough to suit the editor who tagged them. If you remove citations, you make the content vulnerable to a WP:CHALLENGE purely because it's now unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can live with that; no information is better than potentially bad information in the health realm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While moving in better sources, I have definitely encountered some things that should not have been there. Anyway, partially cleaned up, still waiting for the journal source mentioned below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student editing followup[edit]

Student editor User:Sm999 issued messages to two other student editors, likely from the same course, and those edits lead to user:Bcritical. Ian (Wiki Ed), might you reach out here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like Marchjuly reached out to them in 2020 while that class was active. It doesn't look like they've posted at WP:ENB before, so I'll point them there. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for journal article[edit]

Almost everything used at green nail syndrome is a sub-optimal source. If anyone can access PMID 33492004, could they please email it to me? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I have access to it, but the "Email user" function does not allow attachments; how would you like me to send it to you? (Not watching, please ping.) --JBL (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JayBeeEll I can email you and then you will have my address, from which you can attach it ... thank you so much ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, and you're welcome! --JBL (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JayBeeEll it hasn't arrived yet; I can check again in the morning, but might you doublecheck that you got the right email address that I sent you? Thanks again ... progressing on the article meanwhile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It still has not arrived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm not sure what the problem is -- is it possible it's gone to your spam folder? (The e-mail address is automatically filled in by the Reply function, to a g-mail account that seems obviously to be correct. I sent it a second time this morning. My account is a e-mail address. Sorry this is less smooth than expected! --JBL (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JayBeeEll ah ha! Found in spam! Thank you so much, and sorry for the extra pings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phew, great -- glad I could help! --JBL (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green nail syndrome or chloronychia[edit]

I am unsure whether to move this article to the scientific or recognized medical name (chloronychia). It does seem to be the name used in the most recent sources, but there aren't enough sources overall for me to be assured that it is preferred over the lay term. On the other hand, the only indication I can find of Goldman-Fox syndrome come from one author (Schwartz), so I'm fairly sure that should not be the article name. Help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found another Goldman-Fox syndrome here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under ICD-10, it was "Cellulitis of finger and toe", more specifically "Infection of nail". Under ICD-11, it is any of the "Infections of the nail or perionychium". Neither of these turned out to be helpful, as they mentioned neither the simple "green nail" nor the Greek-derived "chloronychia", and both are about any type of infection rather than this specific one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, ready for others[edit]

I've done all the damage I can do at green nail syndrome; ready for others (article name matter pending above at #Green nail syndrome or chloronychia). @XOR'easter and WhatamIdoing: out of my depth, did what I could. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unwatch; there is still a lot of work to be done there, but I'm out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra help needed at the Concussion article[edit]

Hi, can a few other people add Concussion to their watchlists? I moved some material on Earthquakes being a risk factor to the talk page (as the source did not reflect this) and there is repeated editing back in of the same material. Recent edit . I am hesitant to revert it again as I do not have experience with back and forth edit disagreements. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks JO. I also reverted, posted at talk, and watchlisted the article. Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a long comment on the editor's User talk: page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for helping keep an eye on this article. JenOttawa (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that the editor is heading for a block. Most of the posts are "Have you ever been uploaded <name of something> to Internet Archive (" It's bad grammar, and multiple editors' requests for clarification have been ignored.
@SEPRodrigues, you blocked this editor at the Portuguese-language Wikipedia last September. Could you tell me whether the editor might speak Portuguese natively? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the (unlikely) event that anyone has a spare moment (yea, right), anemia is missing as a dementia risk factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Accessible image has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

attempted to find sources unsuccessfully; not verifiable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been redirected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source-finding links in {{Talk header}}[edit]

Hi all, currently when {{Talk header}} is on a talk page with our project's tag, it replaces the standard "Find sources" links with {{Find medical sources}} which looks like this:

The intended purpose is to help guide newer editors to reliable sources on the given medical topic. I'm wondering if to that end, we should trim a few of the links, to focus a newer editor on the resources that are most likely to get them to the best sources most easily. Personally, I use Pubmed far more than those other links (and I'm curious to hear what you all prefer). The Cochrane link seems dispensable as Cochrane reviews show up on a Pubmed search. I don't know much about DOAJ, but testing it on "Prostate cancer" (use the example links above), I can't seem to filter to just reviews or books, so I'm being swamped with primary sources that wouldn't be ideal for the article. Gale also seems unhelpful for medicine topics. It searches magazines, which is neat for many topics, but probably rarely helpful for us? I never use the links to the individual publishers (ScienceDirect, Springer, Wiley) but now that I click, they actually do have some potentially useful eBooks that wouldn't come up on Pubmed. So I'd propose cutting the links to Cochrane, DOAJ, and Gale. But I'm curious if others have thoughts, and if I'm overlooking the value of these links. Ajpolino (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have thousands of articles that basically aren't about anything scientific. This simple search in PetScan indicates that about 30% of "WPMED's" ~45,000 articles are biographies, most of which won't benefit from PubMed or similar links. Additionally, even the most obviously biomedical subject could have non-biomedical content as well (e.g., which company developed it, who the most famous patient is).
The link to TWL could be hidden in CSS for new editors, since most of them won't have access to it (unless they have made 500 edits at a different wiki). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. That is a good point. I'd support hiding TWL for certain editors, though doing so is well behind my technical capacity. Maybe cutting Cochrane (available through Pubmed) and DOAJ (there's a "free full text" filter prominently displayed on Pubmed, so I think Pubmed provides DOAJ functionality plus much more filtering. But again I could be not thinking through a use case well). Ajpolino (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mostly use google scholar which isn't on the list, but perhaps I it's a new fangled-thing (one feature I really like is being able to search through the papers that cite a particular paper - which is great for checking if your material is up-to-date). On Cochrane... I sort of think of it as a statement that systematic reviews are good for peopel who don't read / don't quite get WP:MEDRS. Do we need science direct, spring etc though? I'd also point out that the most used and important form of access for scholarly writing (if a legally dubious one) is not on that list. I don't know if we can or should put it there... but it does make the whole of providing people a set of sources slightly odd Talpedia 07:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, we don't link to Sci-Hub (for those out of the loop; assuming I'm catching your meaning correctly) because we try to avoid linking to sites that violate others' copyright per WP:COPYVIOEL. We could certainly consider adding "back" GScholar – it's in the original set of source-finding links that displays on non-WP:MED pages. Ajpolino (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about Healthline at RSN[edit]

Deprecation or blacklisting? Zefr (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zefr see the similar example above, at the discussion of Green nail syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peroneal tendon[edit]

Peroneal tendon is currently a red link. Should it redirect to Tendon, or elsewhere? Or do we need an article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling is perineum or perineal described here. Or more likely you were looking for the tendon associated with the common fibular nerve, aka common peroneal nerve. Zefr (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure they are referring to the tendon of the peroneus muscle. TompaDompa (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Reviews - commonly associated with ankle injuries. Zefr (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was trying to link the string "peroneal tendon", spelling as shown, in Schilling tendon procedure to something useful. I note the same spelling in the title of a source in Fibularis brevis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]