Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

    I recently reverted some major changes to trodusquemine that a new editor made to this article because I thought that they were one-sided. Another editor has now restored those changes. I notice that there seems to be a history of conflict of interest problems and sockpuppetry associated with the article and that the most recent editor's username matches the last name of the lead author of newly added references. So maybe some more experienced editors can have a look? Thank you. Reba16 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolled back, and COI Welcome template added to ZASLOFF's talk page, given that Zasloff is an author of the cited article(s). The revision was also much worse than the original. Klbrain (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverts and rollbacks were not effective. Discussions are on the article and editor talk pages. The editor appears to have used multiple accounts and been blocked previously. Adding admin @DMacks: who has also reverted the page.
    --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of Verywell Health for the Myolysis article[edit]

    There is a request to add the Verywell Health page "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" ( to the spam whitelist so that it can be cited in the Myolysis article. Verywell Health (RSP entry) was previously added to the spam blacklist in 2018 because links to Verywell sites had been spammed on Wikipedia. If this whitelisting request is successful, it would be possible for editors to link to this specific page on Wikipedia again.

    The whitelisting request proposes citing "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" as a tertiary source to augment citations of two other sources that Verywell Health cites and summarizes, "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital). I'd like to confirm whether this is an appropriate use of Verywell Health per WP:MEDPOP ("One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source.") before adding the article to the spam whitelist.

    Please join the discussion at WT:SWL § "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" to share your input. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I omit products that are no longer in clinical trials under a company even with conflicting info on Wikipedia?[edit]

    I am creating a page for a biopharmaceutical company (no relation), and am currently looking for products that they have been doing clinical trials on so I can list them as products that are currently in their product pipeline.

    However, there is one article I have found right now for which the responsibility for clinical trials on a drug has been transferred to another company (although there are probably more that I will have to find).

    When I list the drugs currently in the product pipeline for that company, should I omit those being run through clinical trials under another company (where the clinical trials was originally being run under said company), even with conflicting info on Wikipedia?

    CrSb0001 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @CrSb0001, is this the situation you're describing?
    • Company A researched Wonderpam for a while.
    • Company A transferred Wonderpam to Company B.
    • The Wikipedia article on Wonderpam says Company A is researching it.
    If so, I suggest that you correct the Wikipedia article on Wonderpam (to say something like "Company A did some research from 2018 to 2020, and transferred it to Company B in 2021", or whatever the accurate and up-to-date facts are) and that you mention Wonderpam in articles for both companies. Company A's should say "worked on from 2018 to 2020" (maybe in a ==History== or ==Timeline== section?) and Company B's should list it as a current pipeline item.
    Also, if you're thinking of a list for pipeline items, I suggest that a list with more information than just the names would be helpful. Even something as short as "Wonderpam, new class of antibiotics" or "Wonderpam, entered phase II trials in 2022" would be more informative than the name alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is the situation I'm describing. Thank you.
    CrSb0001 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of wonder how many drugs the average pharma company is researching at any given moment. Might be difficult to keep such a list up-to-date, and how long would the list become? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    it has been closed with 'no consensus', thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Student editing[edit]

    FYI, heads up about student editing of medical articles (Medicine and Pharmacy is the subject). Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Manitoba/PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2024 (2nd term) --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Activity feed here --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is there a wrist pain page?[edit]

    This is such a general page. And much of the information is negatively framed in an unhealthy ways. Ischyros7 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrist pain looks like it would be a useful page for people who want general information or can't remember the name of a particular condition. Sometimes you just need to look down a list of possible names until you recognize the one that you're looking for. I'm not sure what you mean by "negatively framed". Mostly, I think it has so little information that there's no room for framing it.
    @Zefr blanked a bunch of content a few months ago. (This is what I call treating Wikipedia like the children's game of Mother may I?: He blanked non-controversial content that he knew was accurate and appropriate, on the grounds that the cited source wasn't ideal. Most of us would have found a better source or tagged it with {{medrs}} instead.) It would probably be good to expand it again. We're missing articles on gymnast's wrist (which is really multiple conditions), so that's one place to start, if anyone's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That content had been added just a few hours before by someone who was clearly just doing so so they could spam links to a small practice's website. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the cited source is not ideal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Calomel - should it be separated into medicine vs rock/mineral?[edit]

    I made some edits to the page for the historical medicine calomel (that caused mercury poisoning) but the Wikipedia page for it is a strange mix of a page describing the mineral and a page about the medical uses. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about how to work with this kind of page could help here - should there be two separate pages? Lijil (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Medicine section is too small to really warrant a separate page, and the calomel page overall isn't TOOBIG. I'd suggest framing the page around MOS:CHEM for compounds, which has a Uses section, so its medical use could be seen within that context. Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Methylphenidate redux - clinical trial quality, risk of bias - comments?[edit]

    More discussion on the efficacy and quality of the evidence base for methylphenidate! Opinions for consensus sought. Those knowledgeable about systematic reviews and risk of bias in clinical trials particularly appreciated. Feline negativity (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Asto77 (talk · contribs) is looking for feedback on the Fatigue article. He posted a request on my talk page. I'm posting the request here for a wider audience. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    it seems the article sections need to be reorganized and there are sections that have many primary sources that need to be replaced with better sources(did some edits) IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit flagged as predatory journal - need help finding out which citation[edit]

    Hi all, I recently committed a large paragraph edit with numerous citations using the visual editor, and when committing the edit, I got a notice that one of the citations was automatically flagged as potentially from a predatory journal. However, the popup notice didn't fit in the publish edit popup box, so I was unable to read the whole notice or see which of the citations was flagged. Can someone point me to a tool that I can use to scan the article for potentially predatory journals, so I can see and fix this citation problem? How can I avoid stumbling into this problem again, and why did the formatting of the publish edit box prevent me from seeing the whole notice? The citations in question were the best available for a scientific project based in India that is necessary for discussion on the page I am editing. Thanks!

    Willmskinner (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Headbomb/unreliable.js D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks, I used that tool to find the citation in question, and it is a publication in a journal that is owned by the predatory OMICs conglomerate, but the paper in question seems to be the only report available about the Indian clinical trial in question, so I am inclined to leave it included. Link here: [1] Will this cause any flagging or downrating of the article I am editing?
    Willmskinner (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Purge it with prejudice. Nothing from OMICS comes remotely close to WP:MEDRS/WP:DUE Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this leads to a question: if I need to discuss the results of the clinical trial in question, the only other articles possible to use are news articles that are clearly referencing the data from this paper. That would look better to the citewatch script but certainly wouldn't actually be more reliable as a source... I can reference the existence of the trial through clinical trial registry webpages, but those don't include the results from it. Willmskinner (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this for Male contraceptive? Which trial is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you need to reference a trial that can't even bother to go through peer review? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing yes! I've copied the paragraph in question here below. For context, this project was the first method of vas-occlusive contraception to be investigated, and gets a very large amount of (often overblown) publicity in the general news media. It has performed multiple clinical trials in India in the last 40 years (some of which have had to be repeated to reach international standards, I believe) and most importantly, has now been approved by the Indian Drug Controller's office (equivalent of the US FDA) for use in India, though it has not reached the market yet (supposedly due to manufacturing scale-up issues). The results of the most recent clinical trial were published in a predatory and possibly poorly peer-reviewed journal, yes, but I don't know whether the authors were aware of that. I'm struggling to figure out how to discuss this project with fairness, given the seemingly earnest efforts of the treatments creators and the difficult structural conditions for research in India, and the fact that it may soon available for use by over a billion people, while being honest about the project's shortcomings. I would appreciate any thoughts!

    "RISUG is an injectable male contraceptive implant that has been in development in India since the 1970s,[1][2][3][4] and completed Phase-III clinical trials in India in 2017, completely blocking sperm release in 97.3% of users and achieving a 99.02% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy "without any serious side effect".[5][predatory publisher][6] As of 2022, RISUG was awaiting approval from the Drug Controller General of India for mass production.[7] RISUG is proposed to be reversed through a second injection that dissolves the polymer, though reversibility has not yet been demonstrated in humans.[8]"

    Willmskinner (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It'd be silly to have Male contraceptive completely omit information about Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), especially now that it has marketing approval to the largest market on the planet, but it's difficult to find really good sources. has a paragraph on RISUG that gives lower numbers ("A subsequent limited phase III study of 139 men showed that the Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance procedure produced persistent azoospermia in 82.7% of men"). mentions that it's "effective", but without any specific numbers.
    I wonder whether it's actually important to include specific numbers in this article. Perhaps it's enough to say that it appears to be effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yeah, that review paper is great! The trial they are referring to in there with lower numbers was for an earlier "restricted" phase III trial with fewer participants. I suppose I could just report the results from that one and then mention the existence of the newest trial by citing a news article about it. I'm still hesitant to reference anything that contains the possibly non-peer reviewed statistics in there, but I will at least refrain from mentioning those questionable statistics myself. Thanks for the help, everyone! Willmskinner (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    1. ^ Khilwani B, Badar A, Ansari AS, Lohiya NK (2020). "RISUG® as a male contraceptive: journey from bench to bedside". Basic and Clinical Andrology. 30: 2. doi:10.1186/s12610-020-0099-1. PMC 7017607. PMID 32082579.
    2. ^ Altstedter A (2017-04-04). "Male contraceptive is being blocked by drug companies who make billions from the female pill". The Independent. Retrieved 2023-10-12.
    3. ^ Sharma RS, Mathur AK, Singh R, Das HC, Singh GJ, Toor DP, Guha SK (July 2019). "Safety & efficacy of an intravasal, one-time injectable & non-hormonal male contraceptive (RISUG): A clinical experience". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 150 (1): 81–86. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_635_18. PMC 6798614. PMID 31571633.
    4. ^ Guha SK, Singh G, Ansari S, Kumar S, Srivastava A, Koul V, Das HC, Malhotra RL, Das SK (October 1997). "Phase II clinical trial of a vas deferens injectable contraceptive for the male" (PDF). Contraception. 56 (4): 245–250. doi:10.1016/s0010-7824(97)00142-x. PMID 9408706. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-09-21. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
    5. ^ Sharma RS, Mathur AK, Ch H, Das R, Shah BS, Goyal A, Ch K, Sharma E, Abrol S, Sahoo B, Lohiya NK, Sadasukhi TC (2023-09-25). "Phase-III Clinical Trial with an Intravasal Once Injectable Non-Hormonal Male Contraceptive-Reversible Inhibition of Sperm under Guidance (RISUG)". Andrology-Open Access. 12 (5): 1–7. doi:10.35248/2167-0269.23.12.297 (inactive 2024-05-11). ISSN 2167-0250.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2024 (link)
    6. ^ "ICMR completes clinical trials of world's first injectable male contraceptive; study claims it's safe". The New Indian Express. 2023-10-19. Retrieved 2024-05-10.
    7. ^ Lohiya NK, Ansari AS, Sadasukhi TC, Pachera S, Khilwani B, Dhaked RK (2022-12-20). "RISUG® offers early contraception: An experience during Phase III clinical trials". Journal of Reproductive Healthcare and Medicine. 3: 11. doi:10.25259/JRHM_8_2022. ISSN 2768-1114.
    8. ^ Ansari AS, Badar A, Balasubramanian K, Lohiya NK (2017). "Contraception with RISUG® and functional reversal through DMSO and NaHCO3 in male rabbits". Asian Journal of Andrology. 19 (4): 389–395. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.185000. PMC 5507081. PMID 27586026.

    Free access to high-quality sources[edit]

    If you need access to books or journals from these publishers:

    then please see Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.

    Note that you have to individually sign up for Perlego and MIT, and some of them (approximately the top half of this list) aren't integrated into the search box at the top of the page. In those cases, you have to find, e.g., the box for Nature, click on "Access collection", and search their website directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I got approved for Perlego. So far, I've found a (complete, legal) copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). I recognize a few titles (e.g., The Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures, Neal's Medical Pharmacology at a Glance, Hoffbrand's Essential Haematology...), but there are several thousand recent books about health and medicine (including vet med and dentistry) on this website, and the search is designed for a student who has been assigned a specific textbook, so assembling a highlights reel is a little challenging.
    If anyone has a favorite book that they'd like to find, please post the name, and I'll see if it's in the list. I'm also willing to do searches for topics (e.g., 150 books on COVID, 22 books during the last five years on epilepsy, ), if you are working on an article and want to see whether it's worth the 60 seconds to apply (It is! And TWL still has almost two thousand unclaimed accounts available for Perlego, so you don't worry that you might taking something away from another editor if you sign up now). There are also books available in several other languages, in case anyone regularly edits at another Wikipedia. I think this is going to be a great resource for editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd appreciate any help from members of this WikiProject in determining the best course of action with this article. It was created by a WikiEd student editor, Eg2619, and is a contested draftification. The article currently needs some cleanup with regards to layout, and contains some essay-like language that's not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I'm also unsure if this subject merits a standalone article, or whether a merge to another article may be appropriate. Thanks in advance, and let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TechnoSquirrel69 thanks for raising the issue here. I moved the article back to userspace. I have my doubts whether this can be salvaged at all, but it doesn't belong in mainspace in this state.
    Since the class is over, I'm hoping this will be the end of it. But if there's anything in the student's work that could improve the main Alzheimer's article, the sandbox is here User:Eg2619/Alzheimer's disease. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of you may have some thoughts on the proposed bot task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Metastatic carcinoma be redirected to Metastasis. I know the terms are technically different but Metastasis covers the topic of Metastatic carcinoma pretty well and I feel like if Metastatic carcinoma was expanded there would be a lot of overlap with the page Metastasis. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a reader interested in metastatic carcinoma would be better served by the article carcinoma? I agree with your basic premise that developing an article on "metastatic carcinoma" is (while possible?) probably not the best context to present that information in. Ajpolino (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, I'm honestly not sure which article would make a better target for a redirect. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely put "Metastatic carcinoma" as a subheader in the article Carcinoma. It does not stand on its own as a separate article. Indeed, there is already a Carcinoma#Invasion and metastasis subheader. The text could just go there — no need for new subheader. Jaredroach (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User is restoring a bunch of old animal models on Methionine. Content such as "A 2009 study on rats showed "methionine supplementation in the diet specifically increases mitochondrial ROS production and mitochondrial DNA oxidative damage in rat liver mitochondria offering a plausible mechanism for its hepatotoxicity" isn't good evidence. One of the listed sources [2] describes a calorie-restricted diet on fruit flies. I am not sure why this is relevant to the article. Per WP:MEDANIMAL I do not believe we should be citing small scale cherry-picked animal studies like this which are clearly weak evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are over 120 review articles with 'methionine' in their title on PubMed over the last 5 years. There would seem to be little need to cite any articles older than those (as there are plenty of good recent ones to choose from). If one were to flesh out the clinical use paragraph in Methionine, then one should probably not dwell on its use for aging, but also include a balance of review articles covering all of its uses (and potential uses). Over a dozen of these 120 review articles discuss aging, so it is appropriate to include aging as part of a balanced coverage - but please use these more recent review articles as references. Jaredroach (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TOPS System#Requested move 20 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (tc) 04:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Recreation: Anesthesiology task force[edit]

    Hi, I'm writing this message in relation to the old anesthesiology task force. I was curious as to the interest in recreating and maintaining this task force which had never been truly established. If anyone is interested, or would like to provide a comment, please reply to this topic. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Neuropol, you're most welcome to unilaterally edit the task force pages, and to set them up however you see fit. I'll gently warn that the engine of each WikiProject/task force is the people, not the pages. Many WikiProjects/task forces were setup in our headier days, but over the years most haven't drawn a consistent group of editors to support them, and have lapsed into disuse. Thus, my advice: if you want an anesthesiology task force, focus on recruiting and cultivating a group of anesthesiology-interested editors, rather than organizing the task force pages. If the group is so large/active that you need the separate page to coordinate your efforts, then the task force is well on its way. Best of luck, Ajpolino (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hip replacement[edit]

    I've just tagged the hip replacement article based on widespread inclusion of unsourced biomedical information. Given the importance of this procedure, editors may be interested in looking into this topic. Sunrise (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Factitial dermatitis[edit]

    I noticed that the template for Factitial dermatitis (see below) has the subsections labelled as 1010. Does anyone know what classification was being used here? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the edit as part of an attempt to action this bot request (a follow-up to this WT:MED discussion). I'm not clever enough to figure how "1010" ended up as the text, but I believe the intention was to replace the ICD code numbers with something human readable. Ajpolino (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]