Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 35 days are automatically archived.
• Want to be kept up-to-date? Sign up to the newsletter!

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178

Piecemeal necrosis

I'm a bit stuck in the terminology forest around Piecemeal necrosis. It is currently written from a generalized standpoint, and the liver-specific lesion is only mentioned under a subheading. A cursory search on PubMed showed me usage of the term almost exclusively applied to the liver. Interface hepatitis is currently a redirect there, and the image of the skin lesion of the thumb is probably a bit astonishing for a reader searching for that. I plan to rewrite the lead to focus on the liver, and to replace the iamge with one from commons:Category:Histopathology of interface hepatitis. Secondly, an ngram search shows interface hepatitis firmly overtaking the term piecemal necrosis since 2000, I might move the article or open a requested move. Lastly, there seems to be a german equivalent term de:Mottenfraßnekrose which is closer to the term "piecemeal necrosis", although the article describes only the liver lesion (i.e. interface hepatitis) and is unlinked due to two separate wikidata items, wikidata:Q7191377 and wikidata:Q1950077, which I'll merge.

Before I do any of this, is anyone familiar with the nuance of the terminology here? Are these terms definitely synonymous? YuniToumei (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not familiar, but I've found some explanations on the terms: . It seems that one of them was deprecated. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now finished updating the article and merging the wikidata items. Thanks again for pointing me to that source! YuniToumei (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for an independent editor: article on nurse coaching

Hello. I'm hoping an independent editor might be willing to write an article on nurse coaching (the practice of registered nurses providing health and wellness coaching; in the U.S. it has a board certification, NC-BC, through the AHNCC).

In the interest of full transparency: I am the COO of the Integrative Nurse Coach Academy, so I have a paid-contribution conflict of interest and am deliberately not writing the article myself. An earlier draft I was involved with was declined at AfC for being LLM-assisted and was subsequently deleted; I want to do this properly rather than repeat that. Rather than submit machine-written prose, I've compiled a set of verified, independent, peer-reviewed sources and would like to hand them to an uninvolved editor who can summarize them in their own words.

The sourcing includes independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and coverage from several countries (full list with DOIs/PMIDs at User:INurseCoach/Nurse coaching sources). I believe the topic meets the general notability guideline, but I'd welcome an independent assessment.

If anyone is interested, I'm glad to provide sources, answer factual questions, and otherwise stay out of the editing. Thank you for considering it. INurseCoach (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Provide the draft link and some reliable sourcing please. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh i see the links youve provided nevermind User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@INurseCoach, is there a significant difference between nurse coaching and Health coaching that's done by a nurse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

He provided a source that explains their relationship: , see Limitations. It looks like nurses can go beyond health coaching. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we think this is best handled as a short separate article, or as a section inside Health coaching? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

On the first question - yes, I'd say there's a real difference. "Health coaching done by a nurse" describes who delivers generic wellness coaching. "Nurse coaching" is a defined nursing role with its own professional scope and standards: the American Nurses Association co-published The Art and Science of Nurse Coaching: The Provider's Guide to Coaching Scope and Competencies, and there's a distinct board certification (NC-BC) through the AHNCC with its own eligibility and competency requirements. It's practiced within the nursing process and nursing scope of practice, so it can incorporate clinical assessment in ways unlicensed health coaching does not. So it's less "a nurse who coaches" and more a credentialed specialty within nursing.

On the second — I'd lean toward a standalone article that's reciprocally linked with Health coaching (each summarizing the other in a line or two), rather than a subsection. My reasoning: the topic has its own certification, its own published scope-and-standards documents, and an independent literature base (systematic reviews/meta-analyses and RCTs across several countries), which seems to meet GNG on its own and is more than fits comfortably inside Health coaching. That said, if consensus here is that a section in Health coaching serves readers better for now, that's fine with me, and it could be split out later if it grows.

Either way I'm glad to point to specific sources (DOIs/PMIDs at User:INurseCoach/Nurse coaching sources) and answer factual questions, while staying out of the editing itself. Thanks again. INurseCoach (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for a page on investigative drugs?

Would adisinsight.springer.com be considered strong enough for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_investigational_hallucinogens_and_entactogens ? Red Fiona (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think so, and it's used in about a thousand articles, so other editors presumably think so, too.

Adis Insight is a database focused on drug development. When you use it, you might want to use {{As of}} and similar signals that the material may be out of date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Unclear source

Source says

Liu et al[15] found that the mortality rate due to falls from >6 meters was 22.7% and while Velmohos et al[16] found that it was 9.6% for falls from >9 meters. In our series, the mortality rate from falls from >9 meters was 23.5%, which is compatible with the literature. Al et al[17] found that the mean fall height was 3.2±2.4 meters and Yagmur et al[18] found that it was 4.5±2.6 meters. In our series, the mean fall height was 2.51±3.7 meters for all patients and 6.79±9.87 meters for those who died.

I have no idea what to do with this. Can anyone help me improve the information on fatality rate at Suicide by jumping from height? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Rather than go into the statistical weeds relayed from the primaries, I'd lean on the preceding summary sentence in the source: "Generally, the mortality rate is greater with falls from higher places compared with lower places", even if such an observation is ... unsurprising. Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That sucks. The whole reason I started editing in the first place is that I was looking for statistics and couldn't find them xD

This article could be expanded to all falls since I found at least one study discussing that but I'm not sure if it's notable enough and not sure precisely in what way to modify NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The difficulty with specific heights is that height isn't necessarily the most important factor. Men's High diving happens from a diving board that's 27 meters high, and it's typical for the divers not only to survive, but also to not even get injured. Frail people, on the other hand, can fall from no height at all and die. You can even have someone die from falling a negative height (up the stairs, or hitting their head on side of a bathtub).

I think that Autokabalesis could be boldly merged into Suicide by jumping from height. What do you all think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really get the concept of bold merges since I can't delete the other article. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You would be turning the article into a redirect to merge it I think.

Autokabalesis does not appear in the ICD10 or 11. There is nothing on pubmed since 1992 (2 results total). And I think it is dubious to begin with, it is almost certainly just either suicide or confusion/delusion of some sort, is it not? A merge might be more of a deletion at this point. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a bold merge means that you cut/paste information from Page A into Page B, and then turn Page A into a redirect to Page B. Detailed instructions are at Wikipedia:Merging#Procedure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that trying to add information about specific distances is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. That can rapidly degenerate into a WP:NOTHOWTO violation. I like what you put in the article: "Age, height, surface type and body impact area all affect the fatality rate". It's true and relevant, without giving any how-to advice.

I really appreciate you trying to improve that article, especially since some editors aren't able to work on suicide- or death-related articles. I assume you've found MOS:SUICIDE. It may be helpful to read some of the general advice to media about writing about suicide, and then thinking about how to adapt that to the principles of an encyclopedia, if you haven't already. For example, neither newspapers nor encyclopedias should glorify suicide, suggest that it's a way to get attention ("A frequent scenario is that the jumper will sit on an elevated highway or building-ledge as police attempt to talk them down" needs to be re-written for that point – for one thing, that happens far more in the movies than in real life; for another, different countries do things differently, so it's not necessarily the police), present it as any sort of "solution" to any real or perceived problem, or provide details that would let a reader re-enact it (because some people obsess over a favorite movie character/celebrity/whatever, and want to do everything that person did).

One thing that's different about a news article about a specific suicide and an encyclopedia article about the general subject is that we should be presenting information about how such suicides are prevented and responded to – not necessarily "call this number and talk to someone" (though specifically for bridges, there are some dedicated crisis hotlines), but things like architectural and landscaping changes (e.g., installing trees, bushes, awnings, and nets) and what happens after a death (e.g., all traffic under a bridge is stopped and divers risk their lives to make sure the person isn't still alive and now at risk for drowning). A student editor added some good content there two or three years ago.

I've rearranged parts of the article to group together similar content. You might find the topics suggested in WP:MEDORDER helpful. I wouldn't suggest following them exactly, but looking through the list might inspire something helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Discord - channel #wpmedicine and promotion on the project page

I propose we should have our own channel on the Wikipedia Discord and promote the discord on our wp main page. I see mostly benefits (not ordered, numbering solely for discussion referencing):

1. recruitment through the discord^[1]
2. improvements to new users experiences getting started on the project, with discord being far less formal and more real time making it a good learning environment
3. talking about opinions, ideas and discussions "throwing things at the wall" style can reveal interesting things and then get good things started
4. increased sense of community - good for people and good for retention of new recruits
5. it helps connect people to people knowledgeable in other areas, such as technical matters, but also commons, wikidata and meta
6. interesting things are shared and happen there, anything from upcoming icon changes to useful scripts to people from the WMF holding meetings to gather feedback

^1. This brings fresh eyes and more lay people, which is cool, because they have unique perspectives, that we can benefit from making good use of, for example: what is important, what needs improvement, what is unclear (despite efforts to make things accessible). Even if this leads to more low quality edits, this just brings attention to articles and leads to incidental improvements to articles people cared enough about to touch. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The page you linked to tells you how to join the Wikipedia Discord. What you propose appears to already exist. Did you read it? - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 13:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We should establish consensus on having a channel there and whether we want to promote it on the page WP:Medicine. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel that there is a lack of competence here? - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 16:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Which part do you feel incompetent about? It looks like the proposal is to add a channel to the existing discord server here with a focus on WP:WikiProject Medicine and then promote the creation of that channel to encourage people to use it. ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

what does a Discord channel do? - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 13:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever it's meant to do, it won't let me join as it thinks I'm not human. Now I have doubts. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I knew it. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 14:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Discord is basically a chat room/text messaging service. There's a big Wikipedia Discord group. Within that, there are smaller channels (a subsection of the big group). The proposal here is to go to the existing big Wikipedia Discord and add a new channel for discussing Wikipedia's medical content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Where do we discuss wikipedia's medical content at the moment? Is there anything wrong with it? Why would an off-wiki chatroom/text messaging service improve on what we have? Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 18:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Well it would exclude people who couldn't sign up because the software captcha is incompetently implemented. Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Input on new article Biodegradable magnesium implants

There is a new, large article Biodegradable magnesium implants from a novice editor Sushant mogratha I have looked at as part of WP:NPP, and would appreciate more eyes on. I have done a little metallurgy-related work on hip implants, so I know a little. In terms of scientific content it looks OK from a quick check, e.g. mostly reputable journals, although it is a bit essay-like. I know you have quite tight rules about medicine related articles, so I would appreciate opinions on it.

N.B., if needed I have some true experts who I collaborated with some years ago that I can ask (off Wikipedia) for input. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Corrected page creator to Sushant mogra Ldm1954 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but to me this article shows many telltale WP:AISIGNS. To name a few, there's WP:AIDASHes throughout the article, undue weight on the importance of individuals or individual products (WP:AILEGACY), wording like Leading companies in the competitive landscape (WP:AIWORDS) and the overall verbosity that this article was written in (44k bytes! in one fell swoop!) are all but promising. There are quite some odd redlinks ("Witte (2010) review" or "orthopaedic implant" piped as surgical implants, which does exist as a redirect, and any regular editor would have chosen over the redlink; plus the redlinks in the See also section), which seem hallucinated to me. The redlinked categories are also odd (WP:AIREDCAT). The structure of the article also includes the typical outline-like "Challenges" and "Future Directions" section. I looked at some refs in the lead, and ref 3 mentions none of the numbers in the article. Ref 5 fails verification entirely and thus seems hallucinated. This article may need to go back to draftspace and be incubated there. YuniToumei (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I will need more than this before I draftify. To be NPOV:

1. Elastic moduli are standard, and definitely do not need a source in the lead, so I am dubipus about your claim for ref 3.
2. Ref 5 is not correct, but there has to be more than one error.
3. Many editors create articles first of WP, so that should not be questioned.
4. None of redlink See Also look odd to me.
5. As I stated on the editor's page, the level of the metallurgy is much (much) higher than I expect from LLM. For instance the Future Direction section is very technical metallurgy.

Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Clarification I would like to know from a medical point of view whether this article is appropriate. I am not concerned about the content beyond it being a bit essay-like and needing some more sources in places. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

PubMed indexed three review articles about this, so it's a notable topic. I don't know anything about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Injury, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

The EMDR article would benefit from improvements in sourcing and possibly balance; some of it is based on sources that do not seem up to MEDRS standards. The discussion at Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing#Lopsided and out-of-date because it is locked includes suggestions and a list of review articles and other peer-reviewed articles, published within the past five years, that could be used to improve the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Humana Article

Hi Wikiproject Medicine,

I wanted to open a discussion for some ideas I had to improve the current Humana page. Right now, I have a request focusing on an operations section. I would love to hear input on this proposal so leave a response, thanks! E Humana (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

per talk there are other projects you may try--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources + work needed on hot or cold shocks in human thermoregulation

I have started as section on Shocks in human thermoregulation based on a The Conversation popular level description. It's not a Cochrane review, but I think it's OK to get started. WP:MEDRS experts can improve it :). There generally seems to be a lack of Wikipedia coverage on human-body-level responses and risks from hot and cold thermal shocks.

On frwiki there's a tiny stub fr:Choc thermique (médecine), which seems to aim at a general medical notion of thermal shock, but literally only refers to a heating thermal shock (ignoring cooling thermal shocks), and is linked (wrongly, I think) through heat shock response (Q1621258) to heat shock response, which seems to be about long-term cellular changes to heat shocks.

Overall, it seems to me that there's plenty of material to be added to Wikipedia on the topic of thermal shocks for humans (and for other animals), as well as some tidying seems to be needed due to confusion between broadly related topics (thermal events) in different specific contexts.

In fact, there's been a brief WP:BRD that currently presents thermal shocks as a French superstition, and a talk page section about this. The editing dispute would be best resolved by improving the Wikipedia articles on the topic. If cold thermal shocks are WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, then that should be created like homeopathy for coverage of the pseudoscience. Boud (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The NHS (which is MEDRS) recommends cool showers in hot weather. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. But based on my searches for info from last week, I get the impression that that particular NHS page is in the minority in the medical community, i.e. {{dubious}} for that particular advice. Boud (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

CDC too. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a bad practice to use non-MERDS sources for MERDS claims. The source can struggle with the low level of accuracy, or it can simply be biased towards some sensational facts, omitting some other important information. If you need a reliable source, you can look at these ones: , . D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, take a look at Wikidata:Notability. News articles aren't usually described somewhere to be notable, as I understand (i. e. databases like Google Books, etc). D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This also needs care to avoid the conflation of shock from cold water immersion, which is obviously real and has MEDRS literature, to the purported shock from walking into an air-conditioned room from a hotter one, which is the central claim of the French superstition. In this diff, the shock of cold liquids was inappropriately generalized to a statement about "fluids" (liquids and gases). Where are the MEDRS reifying the superstition of thermal shock from air conditioners? Einsof (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Three Principles Psychology

The article at Three Principles Psychology has a long history of connected contributors, and it remains largely cited to books by practitioners and advocates instead of peer-reviewed articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this topic is better suited to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. Victoria (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Input on RfC about anti-vaccination journalism requested

An RfC has been opened on whether history of accusations around anti-vaccination reporting should be mentioned in the lead of a biography of a journalist. Input requested especially from editors with relevant expertise.

Paul_D._Thacker#RfC_-_Thacker_anti-vaccine_reporting

Thanks ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• RfC closed.--Victoria (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Requests at Gregory Poland

On behalf of Atria Health and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have submitted a series of COI edit requests for improving the biography about American physician-scientist and vaccinologist Gregory Poland. There are requests related to his early life, educational background, and personal life, if any WikiProject Medicine participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I can see that you already received replies on the listed topics. I can only second them. Victoria (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I should clarify there remain requests related to honors and awards and his career, if an editors are interested in reviewing. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in editing the article, here are some more sources: (about him), (about his research team). D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Medical articles with missing sources

I wonder if there's a way to find all (or a subset of) medical article with sources requests. So far I only see a category "All articles with missing sources", and to dig among them alphabetically is worse than looking for the proverbial needle. Victoria (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Try this link: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?language=en&wikidata%5Fsource%5Fsites=&ores%5Fprob%5Fto=&larger=&categories=All%5Farticles%5Flacking%5Fsources&format=&ns%5B0%5D=1&show%5Fredirects=both&templates%5Fno=&show%5Fdisambiguation%5Fpages=both&output%5Fcompatability=catscan&langs%5Flabels%5Fno=&outlinks%5Fno=&depth=0&search%5Fmax%5Fresults=500&max%5Fage=&templates%5Fuse%5Ftalk%5Fyes=on&after=&langs%5Flabels%5Fany=&since%5Frev0=&templates%5Fany=&max%5Fsitelink%5Fcount=&sortby=title&minlinks=&namespace%5Fconversion=keep&sparql=&min%5Fsitelink%5Fcount=&common%5Fwiki=auto&edits%5Banons%5D=both&referrer%5Fname=&labels%5Fno=&ores%5Fprob%5Ffrom=&common%5Fwiki%5Fother=&links%5Fto%5Fno=&active%5Ftab=tab%5Foutput&project=wikipedia&show%5Fsoft%5Fredirects=both&wikidata%5Fitem=no&outlinks%5Fyes=&outlinks%5Fany=&wikidata%5Fprop%5Fitem%5Fuse=&sitelinks%5Fno=&labels%5Fyes=&combination=subset&rxp%5Ffilter=&smaller=&links%5Fto%5Fall=&search%5Fquery=&cb%5Flabels%5Fyes%5Fl=1&interface%5Flanguage=en&manual%5Flist=&doit=Do%20it%21&subpage%5Ffilter=either&ores%5Ftype=any&links%5Fto%5Fany=&labels%5Fany=&templates%5Fyes=WikiProject%5FMedicine&sitelinks%5Fany=&search%5Fwiki=&manual%5Flist%5Fwiki=&source%5Fcombination=&before=&langs%5Flabels%5Fyes=&cb%5Flabels%5Fno%5Fl=1&page%5Fimage=any&sortorder=ascending&wikidata%5Flabel%5Flanguage=&pagepile=&negcats=&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&ores%5Fprediction=any&maxlinks=&cb%5Flabels%5Fany%5Fl=1&min%5Fredlink%5Fcount=1&output%5Flimit=&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&search%5Ffilter=&wpiu=any&referrer%5Furl=&sitelinks%5Fyes=#num_results

For the "abbreviations" article, see the sources I used in List of medical abbreviations: A#References. The nursing textbook is easier to use (and is visible in Google Books) and has something for almost every letter of the alphabet, but the other book has a much longer list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Victoria (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Peer Review of My Edits to Mycoplasma Pneumonia

Hi all,

I've just made a large change to the treatment section of mycoplasma pneumonia, and would love if some other editors looked it over. I am fairly confident in the claims I've made, but I would appreciate if it got a quick fact checking. Additionally, I'm not sure I correctly followed the style guide. All in, I just want someone else to look it over to double check my work.

Thanks all, -M WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

1. The recommendation about taking into account risk factors looks like a medical advice (an instruction what to do), see WP:NOTGUIDE. And it has no source specified, which is required by WP:MEDRS.
2. As per the MPP abbreviation, I had to search for its explanation by Ctrl+F, I think that the full term is a better choice here for those who are not familiar with this abbreviation.
3. In the description of the corticosteroids treatment practices, the "other studies" phrase doesn't look consistent with the previous sentence.
4. The "Antimicrobial resistance" section is a bit like being out of place. It is not a child section of the Antibiotic treatment section, and it's more about statistics than about treatment.
5. Wikipedia uses the sentence case style for titles, see MOS:SECTIONCAPS.

I didn't do fact-checking, so I cannot say whether your edit has any original research (for example, synthesis of information from multiple sources) or misleading information. D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you very much for the time to review my work! I appreciate your feedback, and I’ll work to make the revisions to address it.

1. ”Taking into account local resistance rates” was mentioned in both the CDC guide and I believe the UCSF guide I cited, although I can cite them again explicitly. Do you believe that would satisfy the requirements for NOTGUIDE, if I reworked those sentences to say something like “the US CDC/UCSF recommends taking into account relevant risk factors when deciding on an empirical antibiotic strategy?”
2. Good note about the MPP abbreviation. I had added it to the lead, but I was trying to find a balance between clarity and not making it too wordy/clunky, which is something I struggle with in the majority of my scientific writing. I’ll try and rework to improve that.
3. Heard re: corticosteroids and I’ll look that over.
4. Antimicrobial resistance was in a prior version of the article, and in the sandbox I was working in, I didn’t include the entire article. Perhaps antimicrobial resistance is best served by its own section in the article, or perhaps a shared section between this article and the article on the bacteria?
5. Thanks for the note on sentence case. I hadn’t seen that policy yet, as I’m still pretty new

Once again, thank you very much for the time you took to review my changes, it means a lot. I hope you have a good day! WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

1. If a reliable organisation (like WHO) recommends something, it's OK to explicitly mention it, if the information is valuable (like wearing masks during some epidemiological global events), or the recommendation is the official opinion of that organisation on the topic. If it's a common practice, I usually write something like "it is recommended ...", or "it is advised ...", "... makes sense ...", "it is reasonable ...", or "there are recommendations ...", or something like that. These phrases are not imperative at least.
2. Wikipedia doesn't use paper, so we can be a little more wordy, if needed. The main aim is to make the text easy to read for the readers. So commonly known abbreviations are OK (like CDC, WHO), but short disease-specific abbreviations are usually not known to the wide audience (unless it's something like COPD). Abbreviations are really good for long names.
3. Also, I should mention that I'm not a native speaker, and what sounds awkward for me might sound natural for others. But in that case, the first sentence didn't explicitly mention any studies.
4. I don't think that detailed antimicrobial resistance mechanisms should be mentions in the treatment section. But in the context of treatment this section can be a good idea. I'd move some of the information to the paragraph about macrolides, and the details and statistics to the separate high-level section, or to the article about the bacteria (keep in mind, that moving information between the articles needs attribution, i. e. a permanent link to the article where it was taken from in the edit summary, and a note on whether the information was changed or included as is).

D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Thank you for the sentence framing suggestions, those are exceptionally helpful.
2. Good point.
3. No worries on first language issues. We're all working together
4. Perhaps then a brief overview of antimicrobial resistance within treatment (I think mentioning the lack of cell wall as a reason for resistance is important here, even if the information might be more useful to providers than patients) but moving some of the detail on antimicrobials in a different section? Perhaps a list of effective and ineffective antibiotics, taken from other sources?

WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Something like "... are ineffective because the bacteria lack the cell wall" fits perfectly well in the treatment section. But "in a study in the ... city of ..., ... % of resistant bacteria were found with the mutation in ..., which causes ..." is mostly undue. Also, the source that was used is a primary source for that information (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources), I didn't get why this information was included in the article. No review sources on resistance, the first evidence on a mutation in that gene? Usually primary sources are used if no other information on the topic is available, and it is worth mentioning such facts (because they are considered important). D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: I agree with you. I want to move that part elsewhere, and completely rewrite it. I did not originally write that, and it was part of the reason I wanted to rewrite the treatment section. I didn’t remove it because I was afraid that my edits would be reverted if I completely rewrote everything and deleted all of what was originally there. I do really agree with your points here, but would you mind checking the article history to see the earlier versions of the article? WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean this one: special:diff/1353484613? It lacks medical sources (see WP:BURDEN, WP:MEDRS). And you wikilinked "walking pneumonia" to "Atypical pneumonia". I don't know whether it is a good idea not to use the redirect Walking pneumonia in this case, but I prefer using redirects. In some cases redirects could become articles, or an article might be split. But it's not the case here, as I think. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That was one of the last major versions of the article, yes. I wasn't sure what to do with that information, so I left it hoping somebody else would help me clean it.

Do you mean I'm lacking a medical source in the lead? Because that can be easily remedied with a CDC source I have on hand. Although I had believed the policy was to not cite things in the lead unless they were controversial?

This is approaching the point where the article needs much more background information/groundwork/a larger introduction, before jumping straight into signs and symptoms. I'm also only making edits slowly, because I'm still very new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I'm editing on this scale. So I also wanted to thank you for the help in understanding what to do and how to do it. WestParkNeuropathy (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, WP:BURDEN says that all content must be verifyable, WP:MEDRS says that all biomedical information should be based on reliable sources, and WP:WHENNOTCITE/MOS:LEADCITE allows omitting the sources in the lead section if the facts are covered by sources in the article body.
As for me, it's a vulnerability of the project, that can lead to something like that: simple:special:PermanentLink/10826984. Have you ever seen fish with bean-shaped kidneys? A bird? I don't think so. At least that part is harmless. And it's just one article of many more. Lead sections without any sources specified are vulnerable for original research.
Also, in your case, the information about "walking pneumonia" isn't present in the article's content. So it's not a summary, it's just a fact. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Glossary#verifiable means that someone able to verify in a source, and the ability to do this does not depend on whether a source is already cited (though obviously that makes it much easier). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

As for removing some information, a good practice is to specify a reason (in the edit summary) why the information is being removed and a link to a rule you are following (WP:UNDUE, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOR, etc). D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

New syndrome page, requesting review

Hi all,

I recently wrote a page up for the page "DHX30 syndrome" through the creation wizard, and when it went live a whole bunch of sections went missing. I have pinged the reviewer but haven't heard back, and would really like to re-build out the page- the missing parts are sort of inexplicable. I added the current page to my sandbox and BOLDED the areas I want to add back in, that I think are critical! Would someone please review? User:Purpleptaters/sandbox

thank you all! Purpleptaters (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In most instances, classifications – such as OMIM entries – are better placed within a {{Medical resources}} template at the bottom of the page (at the end of the last section, but above any control boxes) rather than in the prose within an article.

I've added that template to the live article and also populated with the OMIM entry, SNOMED CT ID (SCTID), and codes for both ICD-10 and ICD-11. Note, please change the OMIM entry and remove the SCTID if the article is updated to reflect the "NEDMIAL (Neurodevelopmental Disorder characterized with severe Motor Impairment and Absent Language, OMIM* 617804) is a name that has been for this disorder, but is no longer considered appropriate because some individuals learn to speak and walk" claim within the sandboxed revision. Little pob (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Incyte article, edit request

Hello, editors. I'm Erik and I work at Incyte. Excited to collaborate! I have an open request on the Incyte Talk page, if anybody is interested in taking a look over there. Thanks INCY Erik (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC) 16:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a request to replace the ==History== section of Incyte. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Müllerian_agenesis#Image

Passionate discussion, if you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

A common approach in the cases of a possible original research with images is to place the Medical source needed template over the text under the image (if the image was published by an MD, Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team can be used to check if the image was legally published and diagnosis is established), wait for a few weeks or months, then remove the image via WP:BURDEN.
In the case of child images, legal-reports@wikimedia.org (from ) can be used to report a possible law violation.
Also, it's a good practice to put a note in the discussion that this project was notified. I wrote here to draw the project attention to a problem with unsources images within the project scope. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Apomorphine side effects

Hi WikiProject Medicine! I made a post on the apomorphine Talk page that may be of interest to editors here, suggesting updates to the Side effects section to make sure that it is as complete and up to date as it can be. Right now it relies on some from my understanding questionable sourcing and is missing some of the side effects. My update uses higher level reviews and completes the side effects list. I would make the changes myself but have a COI and so need volunteer review first. I would love your thoughts! Lexi at Supernus (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Author of review paper also wrote Wikipedia article

Hello all,

I was adding sources to the page for Ataxia–telangiectasia when I noticed similarities between the text in the Orthopedics section and this open access source on Orphanet. I used a copyvio detector and it gave a 97% similarity.

What was odd is that the flagged edits were from 2012, while the source was from 2016. (Redacted)

I was wondering if there was anything to be done, as the text is basically the exact same, and it is present in several parts of the page, but the source is open-access.

Thanks,

Nontes (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

First, we can ask the author of the original text if he is one of the authors of the journal article: Cynthiajro. If he isn't, we can mail Cynthia Rothblum-Oviatt, for example, as the first author listed in the article with email specified. Perhaps, they forgot to add attribution if they used the information from Wikipeda. Many people doesn't know that they can't just copy any information from Wikipedia and put it anywhere else (CC BY-SA differs from CC0). D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless it's entirely their own work they re-used, in which case they can do what they want with it. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's why I suggested to ask the original author of the edit and pinged him. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that if our text came first, there isn't really anything for us to do on-wiki; if Rothblum-Oviatt copied the Wikipedia article to write her journal article, it's up to her to make sure to follow the appropriate CC-related disclosures. If she and the editor who originally added the text are the same individual (and just to note, they have not disclosed that information nor made a public connection) then it's less reverse-copyvio and more they can do what they want with it (though they should probably disclose that connection). I will note though that the editor who added the original text has not edited since 2018, so contacting them on-wiki might not yield any results but a ping really isn't likely to get their attention.

I would also say, just be cautious about contacting Rothblum-Oviatt, as it can sometimes go badly, and since it's not really our issue I will suggest that we probably just leave well enough alone for now (though by all means feel free to drop a talk page note to the editor). Primefac (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, this topic is not in the scope of our project (medicine), it's more about copyright. I think that chances that the information was copied from the wiki without attribution are much greater than anything else. And yes, it's not the case when we need to do something on-wiki. But the main question remains: can that source be used as a source for that information if there is a possible copyright violation in it, and we know it? It's an odd case. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

We can cite any source. We don't usually link to sources with suspected copyright violations (per WP:LINKVIO), but in this case, I think we have good reasons to believe that there is no copyvio whatsoever.

In case it's not clear from the above explanation,

• You hold the copyright for anything you write (and other editors for what they write).
• If you post it on wiki, you license it under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL.
• However, you're granting a non-exclusive license, which means you're welcome to license or publish that same text/content elsewhere and under other licenses (or no license).

What this means is that if you write something here, and then you (yourself, not other people, because only you own the copyright) decide to copy that into a journal article you're writing, then that's legally fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nontes, you may want to put Template:Backwards copy on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Done.

Nontes (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)