Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This page is a place to discuss issues related to Wikipedia's medical articles and related policies. If other topics are brought up, it's likely that they will be moved to the relevent sections of Wikipedia. We are not able to provide any medical advice, please see your local health professional.

WikiProject Medicine
Navigation
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ FA review	talk
→ Featured topics proj.	talk
Task forces	talk
→ Emergency and EMS	talk
→ Reproductive medicine	talk
Open tasks
→ Collaboration of the Week	talk
→ Nominations for deletion
→ Pages needing attention
→ Needing expert attention
→ Requested articles
→ Cleanup listing (top imp.)
Stub sorting	talk
Categories
→ Project
→ Articles by quality
→ Articles by importance
Participants	talk
Portal	talk
· changes

Archives

WikiProject Medicine /1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9 ... Merged WikiProject Clinical medicine /1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /10, /11 WikiProject Preclinical Medicine /1

Welcome to the doctor's mess! There are only a few rules:
1. Don't shout, remain civil and treat each other with respect.
2. Please wash any cups you use and clean up, let's not make a mess out of this mess!
3. The 7 o'clock news always has priority on the tv, except when The Simpsons are on.
4. Please add new sections at the end of the page.

This page is to discuss anything related to WikiProject Medicine.
Threads older than 14 days are automatically archived (see list on the right).

variable deceleration - obgyn fetal heart strip finding

I'm having trouble finding an article on variable deceleration. does one exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.240.70 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing I found was Cardiotocograph. Feel free to expand on variable decelerations there. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can get some people on the reproduction task force to take up fetal heart monitoring articles. It should be an important topic for OBs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.41.52 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble here is that the analysis of these strips seems to be an emerging practice. I have found only nursing school notes listing rules of thumb for what is a "variable deceleration", nothing of the quality required for Wikipedia. Absent reliable sources, the article would be amount to original research. --Una Smith (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I know for a fact that there are clear definitions. Not sure if this can be found in peer-reviewed journals though. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stevenfruitsmaak, I think we're saying the same thing here. I have found more than one clear definition, but not exactly the same and not published where it would stand up as a reliable source. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

there is at least class B research/articles defining fetal heart strip monitoring. I believe consensus meetings were just held. Practically every OBGYN knows how to interpret heart tracings and it is in almost every OBGYN textbook. If it is in the textbook it has to be able to be sourced.

Pneumonia

I found this previously featured article with a coding error but am unsure how to fix it myself and it looks like it has been there for a long time, so am unable to revert or find a earlier accurate copy. The code error can be found here and it deletes a large section of the article Pneumonia#Prognosis and mortality. As this article has been referred to as one of the best articles on Wikipedia, i thought i best post here. Regards Boylo (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Black Death

Black Death has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Common cold

Could some kind soul review Common cold - an anonymous IP editor is adding info regarding the use of marijuana as an herbal treatment. I have reverted twice and don't want to get nailed for edit warring. Thanks—G716 <^T·_C> 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the thought... Stoned and congested at the same time. (COI: never smoked, let alone used marijuana.) JFW | T@lk 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy-induced hypertension article should be changed to gestational hypertension

gestational hypertension is more correct. most guidelines say the term PIH should be phased out. pregnancy does not persay "induce" the hypertension. verify if you want, but PIH, although still used in hospitals that are slow to adapt should be changed to gestational htn. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.41.52 (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you follow the process on WP:RM. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

where should hypermodel conception redirect to?

I think it means aneuploidy, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.243.48 (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure a redirect is needed? I get no Google hits for "hypermodel conception". JFW | T@lk 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, in its plural form I get four ghits. I'd say redirect to polyploidy. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated wearable artificial kidney merger proposal

I need some more feedback regarding whether or not to merge AWAK to Dialysis. Please see the talk page on dialysis for more information. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

is there an article that tells what the -x means at the end of a page (pager/beeper)?

so I hear that at the end of a page (like a beeper page), you can put -4 for medical student. -1 for pharmacy, -5 for intern, -6 for R2, etc etc. Do we have an article for that? I'm curious to what -2 and -3 are. Is -3 for nurses? Is this standardized across the US / World or is it only institution specific. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.244.1 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. It sound very much like an institution-specific protocol that is unlikely to be notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Like JFW, I have not seen or heard of this in the UK. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable sources, which means published or at least held in a public library or document archive. If this is a local practice, it may have no usable source. On the other hand, the OP's question relates to shorthand used in electronic communications more generally, and Wikipedia has some articles about that. See for example Shorthand and Internet slang and Medical slang. OP, you might ask on Talk:Medical slang about pager slang in hospitals. --Una Smith (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Coarctation of the aorta?

Shouldn't Aortic coarctation be at Coarctation of the aorta? Bit low down for me as I only do the neck up, but I seem to recall this from med school....come join the fun. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of information

I've come across two articles that state information that appears to be contrary to what I've been told by doctors or what I've found in science papers on the internet. Namely - Otomycosis article states that A. niger is an uncommon cause of the infection (whereas many other sources site that it's the most common fungus to cause it). Iron deficiency article states that it's rare in non-menstruating adults, whereas it seems to be very common in both men and women who don't menstruate (such as on depo provera or skip their sugar pills). Is there a wiki code that marks a sentence as "possibly incorrect, expert attention required"? (something similar to citatation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.201.197 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You could start with {{fact}}. Or if you have reliable sources (try searching for a review at PubMed.gov), then you could just correct the information. {{Sofixit}} applies to errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"eMedicine dictionary"

Personally, I'm not in favour of this and how it is used.

• IMHO, a reference should be a reference -- not merely a link.{example} If we extend the logic here, one could say that we should do way with PubMed references and just give the PMID.
• There is no such thing as the "eMedicine dictionary"; eMedicine uses Stedman's Medical Dictionary.[1]

Any thoughts on this?

Nephron  T|C 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the additional value of providing a reference saying "Retrieved Sept 25, 2008"? For this source, the reference tag is just cumbersome but not useful, imho. The same logic is already used in {{eMedicine}}, {{WhoNamedIt}} etc. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way of directly linking to Stedman's? If not, we could edit the template mentioning them both. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Stedman's. Note that the content at Stedman's and at eMedicine is not identical. For example, the entry for aorta at eMedicine reads:

"A large artery that is the main trunk of the systemic arterial system, arising from the left ventricle and ending at the left side of the body of the fourth lumbar vertebra by dividing to form the right and left common iliac arteries. The aorta is made up of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and descending aorta, which is divided into the thoracic aorta and the abdominal aorta"

and Stedman's entry reads

"A large artery of the elastic type that is the main trunk of the systemic arterial system, arising from the base of the left ventricle and ending at the left side of the body of the fourth lumbar vertebra by dividing to form the right and left common iliac arteries. The aorta is subdivided into: ascending aorta; aortic arch; and descending aorta, which is in turn, divided into the thoracic aorta and the abdominal aorta. ". --Arcadian (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Stedmans website is now using the 28th edition, but hasn't updated the blurb on their site. WebMD has the same text as Stedmans's but notes the 28th edition. Either way, you are supposed to cite the source you used. So unless you've got the dictionary and are just supplying a convenience link, you should give WebMD or eMedicine as a web source (which requires an access date) but may mention the original source that web site is copying. I think mentioning the original source is worth doing here, so in the future someone can see the definition has changed yet again, and the reason is that WebMD used the 31st edition from 2012.

• Aorta. WebMD Medical Dictionary. Cited 26 September 2008. Based on Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 28th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

FWIW, I don't use these templates; we have more than enough citation templates. Colin°^Talk 09:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those templates are problematic as they result in inconsistent citation formats, meaning they have to be replaced when articles come to FAC and have to comply with 2c, consistent citations at WP:WIAFA. I wish they'd all be deleted; we do have enough citation templates, and we don't need additional ones that are incomplete and inconsistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW

The current Medicine Collaboration of the Week is Meningitis. Last week's collaboration was Heart failure.

JFW | T@lk 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could push this article up to GA status at least. It is not very common, but it is a dreadful disease and should be a high-quality article. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more common than G6PD, that's for sure :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Eponym templates

I propose merging templates that categorize eponymous medical signs into templates that categorize medical signs more generally. Several such templates exist. See for example Template talk:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs. --Una Smith (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As creator of both of the templates references, I don't object if someone wants to merge them, but if they are merged, then the same decision should probably be made with the corresponding templates for the other body systems, for consistency. --Arcadian (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oxygen toxicity" or "Hyperoxia"?

Which is better? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

CDC Public Health Image Library

The Public Health Image Library contains a large number of high quality images, most of which are in the public domain. I think these would make a good addition to wikicommons for use in wikipedia. I was thinking it is probably possible to automate the import of all images that are public domain to wikicommons including converting those in tiff format to png. Except I don't have the technical knowledge to do that. Does anybody think this would be useful and who can help with that? --WS (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is possible, the people over at WP:BOTR will be able to help you more than we ever could. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that useful, a blanket move would include a lot of images that may already be duplicates that are on en.wiki or commons with less specific tags (see Category:United States government images), the images would still need semi-automated addition of categories, and the images are just as easy to search and add to relevant pages from the CDC-PHIL page as they are on commons. Everything that is currently tagged with a template as from the CDC-PHIL is in commons:Category:Images from the CDC Public Health Image Library, I've done most of the re-tagging/moving of images in that category. I would suggest instead to go through various categories and pages on wiki or commons to make sure they have valid tags and move the images accordingly, and use the CDC-PHIL's image of the day, or what the current MCOTW is to decide what image/category to look at. We may also want to post the links to CDC's PHIL, and Parasite image library as well as the National Cancer Institute Visuals Online. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know so many were uploaded already. Almost none of them seem to be the high resolution version though that is available for most pictures. --WS (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now added links to the libraries along with Pubmed and Iberri's PMID tool to the project mainpage. If you see any that need high res versions go ahead and upload the replacements where you see fit. They way I've been doing it is to: 1. open the image on wiki, find it in PHIL (or vice-versa); 2. add an information template, update the license, add any relevant categories, and add language links using the What is that? tool; 3. Convert the TIFF image in MSPaint (GIMP removes the metadata on me) and upload the updated version if needed; 4. If the uploaded image finds a dupe then tag one for deletion, otherwise try to link any similar/dupe images in the other versions line; 5. Repeat for each image in the category you're working. It's a pretty light task if you want something to do with minimal conflict. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments article, specifically Image:Adderallrx.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

• And also Image:Amine hormones, norepinephrine and triiodothryonine.jpg at Endocrinology

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FAs needing review

A Wikimania talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist, discussing the high quality of our scientific featured articles.

Praise for our developed content, not so for our undeveloped content. He singled out breast cancer as particularly bad, and mentions DNA repair, which is an older FA and needs review.

By the way, these are our oldest medical FAs that haven't been reviewed, it would be stupendous if they could be reviewed and restored without WP:FAR:

I post this again since I have finished reviewing and referencing multiple sclerosis. I think right now it fullfills FA criteria. It would be great if anybody gave its opinion and did some copy-editing (I did my best :-) Let's see if we can take all of them to current FA criteria. --Garrondo (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did my damndest to copyedit. Please look over my changes carefully—I'm not a total dummy when it comes to medical terminology, but I'm no doctor, either—and if I did anything boneheaded, I'd really appreciate an explanation so I can do better next time. I also left a few specific questions on the talk page. Maralia (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It definitely needs some more copy editing. I still found words like "ambulation" in it. --WS (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I guess that's too obscure/jargony? I didn't choose the word, but I left it in. Maybe I had too many years of Latin. Maralia (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eucalyptus oil a conventional medicine

It was suggested that I discuss this subject in the Doctors Mess if I disputed a fellow editors decision to exclude Eucalyptus oil from the Wikiproject Medicine banner on the basis that it should not be considered as a conventional medicine.

However, it appears that eucalyptus oil is indeed a conventional pharmaceutical on this basis:

1. Medicinal quality of Eucalyptus oil is specified by minimum standards defined in the British, United Sates and other pharmacopoeias (Boland et al, 1991) and cited in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology[2].

2. "Eucalyptus oil" is included as an active ingredient in pharmaceutical products [3] [4].

3. The efficacy of eucalyptus oil is supported by pharmacological research[5][6].

4. Products containing eucalyptus oil as an active ingredient are recommended by doctors to patients.

5. Eucalyptus oil has a long history of use by surgeons and the medical fraternity (see history in Eucalyptus oil article).

I think the confusion by the fellow wiki editor appears to be a result of branding issues (but not based on evidence of EO as a pharmaceutucal active), and also a confusion between essential oils and homeopathics (which are quite different of course). Of course, eucalyptus oil is also used in natural therapies, however this does not automatically exclude an ingredient as a conventional pharmaceutical as well, if that ingredient is used in conventional pharmaceuticals as an active ingredient.

I recently spoke to my local pharmacist and he is of the opinion that eucalyptus oil as an active ingredient within a pharmaceutical product should be most definately considered conventional, as it is a recognized active ingredient in pharmaceutical products that are also recommended by doctors to patients attending their pharmacy, and because it had a defined pharmaceutical standards per the BP, and is used in pharmaceutical-style products.

Of course, pharmaceutical products containing eucalyptus oil are sold over-the-counter but that has no bearing as to whether it's considered pharmaceutical or not, as many other conventional pharmaceutical medications are also sold over the counter.

Given the evidence, I find it hard to see how eucalyptus oil can be excluded from conventional status.

I would appreciate any comments. Thank you.John Moss (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that eucalyptus oil is mostly something used in complementary and alternative medicine but also has strict pharmacological and medical applications. Even if that weren't true, CAM is still a part of medicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Steven - that's very helpful. I'm also curious to know if any Wiki physicians actually recommend pharmaceuticals containing eucalyptus oil? Maybe as a decongestant or topical for muscular pain.

Thanks once again. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have one discussion, please, at Talk:Eucalyptus oil. Steven, perhaps you'd like to add your comments to that page, and perhaps expand on them to name the conventional medical applications of this herbal preparation. You might also like to have a look at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Is_WPMED_the_correct_WikiProject_to_support_this_article.3F to see the standard divisions between the projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, just a technical correction: an essential oil is not usually considered a "herbal preperation" per the school of herbalism. Herbalists tend to use whole leaf tinctures etc, and specifically the standards in the BP and other pharmacopoeia are defined by measurable quantities of isolates per conventional medication standards - unlike herbalism which shys away from isolates.

Also I checked the WikiProject Medicine, and it does say there is scope for both categories. Eucalyptus oil is a widely used pharmaceutical ingredient in decongestants and topicals for treating musculoskeletal pain, and as Steven says with "strict pharmacological and medical applications." If eucalyptus oil is used in a conventional pharmaceutical product, supported by pharmacological research, recommended by doctors, than surely it's a conventional medication.

Also, if you refer to the history of eucalyptus oil in the article, you will see that it's grounded in conventional medication - not alternative therapies. It was surgeons and pharmacists who originally initiated the development of eucalyptus oil. Eucalyptus oil by itself never existed as a folk remedy - the distillation of eucalyptus oil was first done by surgeons. It's actually drifted from conventional into alternative therapy use. Not the other way. And that conventional history is also why there are very well established standards for eucalyptus oil in pharmacopoeias and explains why it's still uesd in pharmaceutical products.

WhatIamdoing, it was your original suggestion to flag the issue in the Doctors Mess, and I fully concur with that. We need to flag the issue with physicians to get fresh perspectives. Why change that now?John Moss (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to point everyone to an ongoing suggestion, it's a bad idea to discuss in several places at the same time. Article specific issues should be discussed on the talk page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go with that. Cheers.John Moss (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Wikipedia for Schools

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of health and medicine topics included is here. Feedback welcome at Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. Historical versions of articles were hand picked by volunteers, choice of topic was manual mainly from the version 1.0 selectionbot output. --BozMo talk 10:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gadget for welcoming anons interested in medicine

For those of you familiar with WP:FRIENDLY, there is now a script that allows you to add project-specific welcome templates to your interface (such as {{MedWelcome}}. Check out WT:FRIENDLY#Project-specific welcome templates. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Position of "toxicology" infobox

Are there any strict rules (or even guidelines) governing the position of a template like {{toxicology}}?

The article Oxygen toxicity that I'm working on has expanded and I'd like to add more images, but they are related to topics near the top of the article. Since the {{toxicology}} box is quite long, it moves all the images down (particularly on wide screens) and disconnects them with their topics. Is there any reason why the {{toxicology}} box should not be lower down the page, perhaps even in the References section?

I am asking here in case there's already a consensus that requires the box to be near the top of the page for consistency with other articles. Thanks for any help --RexxS (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any guidelines, but I personally prefer the ones at the bottom of the page, like the oxygen toxicity page also already has. The one at the top could easily be merged into the one at the bottom. --WS (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS wants infoboxes at the top. Editorial judgment is still appropriate. Have you tried putting some of the images on the left? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that was a good heads-up! I found this: "Vertical navigational boxes, sometimes called "sidebars", and horizontal navigational boxes are sometimes placed in the lead, especially when no infobox is present. If an infobox is present, the navigation sidebar may be moved to either the top or bottom of any other section in the article." As there is an infobox in Oxygen toxicity and the problem is the navbox (even though I called it infobox), it looks like I can move it. Although, I'm also attracted to the idea of some images on the left. Only problem there is when you look at the page in 800x600 resolution. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any official policy preferring right sided or bottom navigation boxes. WP:ACCESS only says they can be in the lead. However they might be problematic especially with regard to accessibility, because they take up large part of the screen on low resolutions, and for people with screenreaders, they put a lot of stuff before the actual article. Most discussions I have seen therefore seem to favour bottom of article navigational boxes. --WS (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the HTML content of the article at present, the infobox comes first, then the side navbox. The bottom navboxes are almost at the end of the page content, so I concur with WS's view. However, I quite like the comprehensive content of the side 'toxicology' navbox. If the bottom 'poison & toxicology' navbox had the same content, it would be no contest - the bottom box would be my choice. I'm therefore attracted by WS's other suggestion: to merge the content of the side one into the bottom one. But then I would be changing a template in use on other pages - would that cause problems for others? or can I just go ahead and do it? Any advice appreciated and thanks again --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Value of Epocrates external links

I'd like to hear some opinions on using Epocrates in external links. Me and others have seen several links to this site appearing in external link sections, and the question arises how these should be treated. Epocrates Inc. provides free medical information in a partnership with the BMJ Group.

I think there could be two conclusions:

1. This is a useful resource, similar to eMedicine and maybe more so that GPNotebook (both of which are linked from {{Infobox Disease}} and have their own templates. Therefore, this should be treated similarly, or at least not be deleted as "spam".
2. This external site provides little extra on top of what a featured Wikipedia article would contain, and should be treated as spam (and maybe a request should be made to add it to the spam blacklist).

I myself am not completely sure, or else I wouldn't ask. A first look reveals that this site contains some interesting features (like images of pills, drug interactions etc.) and a useful organisation which makes me lean towards option nr. 1. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Side note: GPnotebook nolonger free access and Arcardian therefore downgraded the {{GPnotebook}} external link template. David Ruben ^Talk 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched for some drugs and found some very terse information that wouldn't be any use to the general reader. Looked like it was aimed at the prescriber, though there wasn't really any guidance, just lists. The patient info and pill pictures required (free) registration, which is forbidden by our external links guidelines. Then I clicked on diseases and was told that was only available in the US and Canada. So, that's a #2 from me. Colin°^Talk 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I'm in Belgium and I could see the page on pulmonary embolism... The site is indeed directed at practitioners, but the same could be said about eMedicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven, the link you provided requires me to register in order to view the website. Therefore I will not be looking at the website or using it for references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Axl, an example of an external link that was added is this: can you view this without registering? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I was politely invited to comment here do to my deleting this as spam. My reasoning is that first, this is being added every few months by multiple anon IP's that are going to a lot multiple articles and adding the link to them without making any other edits other than to add this site. Second, I don't like sites that require a sign in first to see any of the information enclosed in that site. I think this site violates WP:EL policies. I don't think readers should be required to go to a site and sign in to read the information. I can't say off the top of my head if this is a violation of external links or not but I do know that it is a violation to spam it to multiple articles just to have the site added to Wikipedia. I really think that this URL should be added to the spam blacklist since it is has continually been spammed to many artilces and remove as quickly by many editors. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) As can be seen by the comment by Axl, I am not alone in refusing to sign up to see the site.

Sites requiring registration are banned for ==External links== (but not ==References==) under WP:ELNO #6. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

References don't require any web link at all, but in the case of this website the web link must be navigable by anyone seeking to validate a citation, because the website is all there is. So I favor no more linking to this site. --Una Smith (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request submitted to User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#epocrates.com. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven, thanks for the new link. I am able to view a limited amount of information. However the details are restricted. The website trips up on criteria 1 & 6 at WP:ELNO. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done this has now been added to XLinkBot's revertlist by User:Versageek. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination for Osteochondritis Dissecans

I have nominated the article Osteochondritis dissecans up for GA review. It's information is well referenced with use of inline citations throughout. Perhaps it requires some expansion, however the most relevant and widely-accepted information (found so far) has been presented. Your review and/or help on this article would be much appreciated! Cheers! Food_Puma 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

merge of overeating and Compulsive_overeating

There is a discussion on merging overeating and Compulsive_overeating at Talk:Overeating#Merge_with_Compulsive_overeating - come join the fun. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos of medications

Hi,

if you're interested in discussing if and how we can get more pictures of drugs, please voice your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Photos of drugs.

thanks, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"medical biling resentment" syndrome, MBR

DAIGNOSIS and CAUSES: Potential patients hide painful conditions, (like arthritis pain,) well know danger signs, (like frequent urination,) and chronic conditions, or genetic predispositions, (like hypertension,) and other life-limiting conditions that should be treated, because they have had ruinous prior experience with medical billing procedures. Persons afflicted with MBR eschew timely treatment and contrive actions detrimental to their personal well being, As the incidence MBR grows, public health will become endangered.

MBR is thought by some students to originate in the insurance companies selling their financial service as providing useful service to individuals and the population by spreading risk to large groups. Historically most peoples interactions with medical billing and insurance companies lead to the conclusion that bureaucracies, public and private, are greedy to collect money, and miserly to dispense treatment. Most of the population want to contribute their fair share to meeting societies healty care needs.

While huge bureaucracies prosper richly by using elaborate and deceptive financial procedures, resentment festers in both the healthy and afflicted. As the well known ill individual effects of unmitigated resentment linger endemic, the population withers.

PERSCRIPTION: A sick and hurting population calls out, "Prompt and effective reform of all predatory and unethical medical billing practices,now!" Oversight, regulation, more regulation, socialism, whatever it takes."

ALSO SEE: Reverse Munchausen syndrome.

Preliminary unscientific studies have verified several cases of MBR, more study is needed Cactusmitch (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Is this entity geographically restricted to the U.S.? MastCell ^Talk 21:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Have never seen this in Belgian patients; it takes the form of hospital bill neglect syndrome in Europe, I think. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a cure... the National Health Service! However, it should be noted this causes significantly more damage in huge waiting lists. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, people are much better off being totally uninsured than having to spend time waiting for healthcare... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine

These articles are going to be linked from the main page for a while, more watching eyes are welcome...

• Cervical cancer
• Human papillomavirus
• Luc Montagnier
• Françoise Barré-Sinoussi
• Harald zur Hausen
• Human immunodeficiency virus (which is semi-protected anyway)

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest a few extra eyes and watchlists on Robert Gallo, who was conspicuously absent from the Nobel Prize listing; his article is also attracting signficant attention. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

fleet enema

pt got a fleet enema in the E.R. What is a fleet enema? it is not in wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.108.175 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 6 October 2008, at 22:31.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.