Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    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

    Anti-inflamantory medications

    [edit]

    Anti-inflamantory medications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I think this is a new article, though there have been several page moves, making the history a bit confusing. Regardless, it is poorly-written (or re-written?), by someone with a poor grasp of English, and apparently no familiarity whatsoever with WP:MEDRS. I also suspect that a LLM may well have been involved in the writing. Could one of the regulars here perhaps take a look? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We already have an article for NSAIDs, dont see why another one was made. It does seem that they took the information straight from Anti-inflamantory page and that page needs a lot of attention and work. Not familiar with deletions but don't see a reason why we need two of the same article. DrTheHistorian✎ 23:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably be pushing it a little, but there's a part of me that wants to see all usage of 'Anti-inflamantory' on Wikipedia REVDEl'ed, on the basis that there ain't no such word, nohow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did make a spelling mistake on the "inflammatory" in my cm above while tagging it.
    Well some drugs do have anti-inflammatory purposes, NSAIDs being the most known one, some such as Glucocorticoids (eg: prednisone) can also have anti-inflammatory effects. So deleting all of them would'nt be wise :)
    It is also a word, see: Merriam-Webster Dictionary. DrTheHistorian✎ 00:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you re-post the link to the article? I'm seeing a red link in your initial comment, and a search for "Anti-inflammatory medication" redirects to Anti-inflammatory (which does need some work but I don't think that's the article you were referring to). BetsyRogers (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With all the page moves etc, I think the problematic version has now been deleted, and we are back to something acceptable. An admin should be able to figure out where it went an send you a copy if you need to see it. There was a lot more wrong with it that just the misspelled title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I thought that might be what happened. Sounds like a good call. Thanks for flagging that! BetsyRogers (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the article Anti-inflammatory should be moved to Anti-inflammatory drugs and describe the mechanism of action of steroid and non-steroid drugs. I don't have access to these sources: [1], [2], [3], but they might be making the topic notable. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti-inflammatory diet redirects there, and that is 'a thing' in medicine, even if it got blanked for saying things like "A 2022 meta study found that plant-based diets such as a vegan, vegetarian, or mediterranean diet or the DASH diet are associated with lower inflammation levels" ...which I'd have thought to be pretty unobjectionable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Mediterranean-type diet is associated with longer life, it's not surprising that it is associated with anti-inflammatory effects ([4]) rather than any plant-based. Vegetarian and vegan diets have some problems like possible B12-deficiency and smaller amounts of essential amino acids in consumed food. But information like this should be in the Anti-inflammatory diet article. Anti-inflammatory is about the property, so there's not much to say about it, I doubt that it is even notable. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Anti-inflammatory diet is definitely a mainstream medical thing that doctors (including mine!) are starting to recommend for patients (like me) with chronic pain. There's some solid data on certain types of foods being associated with higher levels of inflammatory markers as well. I could understand removing that section if the article was specifically about "anti inflammatory medications", because dietary modification isn't medication. Honestly I think it makes more sense to have an article that's just for anti-inflammatory drugs. "Anti-inflammatory" is a very broad term. (Also it's an adjective, not a noun). BetsyRogers (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest a change in the title for the article to "Anti-inflammatory drugs"? I can't find an article with that title (or "Anti-inflammatory medicines" etc). It just redirects to this article. Also is there a way to figure out how many redirects are going to that page? BetsyRogers (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess i should put that "proposal" in the talk section for the article... BetsyRogers (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether we want that page to be a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article ("multiple things called anti-inflammatory"), or if we want that page to be only about medications ("only drugs claimed to be anti-inflammatory"). I suppose it could also be a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support having three pages:
    - a broad concept article for "anti-inflammatory" that explains multiple things are considered anti-inflammatory (medications, foods, ice etc) and why (e.g. causes reductions in biomarkers, reduction in signs etc)
    - "anti-inflammatory drugs" for medicines
    - "anti-inflammatory diet" for discussion of foods/diets that have been proposed as anti-inflammatory. Daphne Morrow (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daphne Morrow I posted on the talk page (see "Proposed title change to "Anti-inflammatory drugs" (or restore some of the deleted sections)" ) before I saw your reply here. That's a good suggestion to consider. Maybe you could re-reply on the article talk page? BetsyRogers (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To have a page about anti-inflammatory as a broad topic, one have to find a source that reviews it in such a way, see Wikipedia:Notability. I tried to search a little, but didn't find anything. D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, we shouldn't have a page titled "anti-inflammatory" at all, because it's an adjective, and article titles should be nouns. But it should be obvious that various efforts to reduce inflammation are discussed as a whole; "take some NSAIDS" is followed closely by "get some exercise" and "eat a healthful diet", because all of these things treat inflammation. The only real question in my mind is what to name the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble finding suitable recent secondary sources
    a) an overall source discussing anti-inflammatories in general. I'm not sure if a immunology textbook might discuss interventions for chronic inflammation?
    b) specific sources for diet, exercise, sleep, and ice interventions. (for NSAIDs, steroids and fibre I don't expect to have any trouble). A lot of these came from one trove of research on the topic:
    I've got this 2022 review of omega-3
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567576922005884
    This 2019 review of the mediterranean diet that mentions the anti-inflammatory hypotheses and associations: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.313348
    I've maybe got this from 2019 for tumeric:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661818319236
    and this from 2023:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043466623000224
    I've got this finding exercise intensity did not affect chronic inflammation from 2021:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1440244020307830
    Sleep from 2024:
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09727531241275347 Daphne Morrow (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried turning it around, and instead of searching for "anti-inflammatory", searching for something like "treatments for inflammation" or "inflammation reduction"? The common lay-person word isn't necessarily the term that medical sources will use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'll add it to my to-do list.
    I'm also finding reviews of pro-inflammatory interventions, but I will add any info from those to the article on inflammation. Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think having separate pages for drugs and diets is a good idea. It keeps the topics more focused and makes it clearer for readers what kind of evidence applies where. The mechanisms, sources, and clinical relevance are pretty different, so splitting them would make it easier to organize reliable sources and maintain accuracy over time. Evathedutch (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where would you put Ice and Exercise? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Cancer pain

    [edit]

    Cancer pain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC at Andrew Huberman

    [edit]

    Talk:Andrew Huberman#RfC: Lead of Andrew Huberman DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Hypercholesterolemia

    [edit]

    An editor has requested that Hypercholesterolemia be moved to High cholesterol, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    RfC regarding "Make technical articles understandable" guideline revamp

    [edit]

    See here for a guideline rewrite relevant to WP:MED. @Colin: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip E. Cryer

    [edit]

    Hello WikiProject Medicine editors,

    I have prepared a new, fully sourced draft for an article on endocrinologist **Philip E. Cryer, MD (1940–2024)**, a longtime Washington University researcher known for his work on glucose counter-regulation and hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure.

    The draft is here: RPK2000: User talk:RPK2000 - Wikipedia

    It cites peer-reviewed journals (JCI, Diabetes, NEJM) and Washington University sources. Could someone please review it for neutrality and notability and, if appropriate, move it to main space? I worked with him and believed his contributions should be more widely recognized but am not an independent objective author due to my work with him. BTW this is my first attempt, and I am considering doing more once I learn the culture and the correct way to become engaged as an editor.

    Thank you very much for your time and guidance! ~~~~ RPK2000 (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not use AI for drafting articles. Large language models hallucinate sources. And please read WP:Conflict of interest and make the appropriate declarations. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @RPK2000 has already disclosed a connection, but as the connection is having worked with the subject, who died last year, several decades ago, I'm not entirely sure that it would be considered a significant COI any longer.
    The draft is at User:RPK2000/sandbox. ERcheck has already looked it over. The Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is not mandatory; any experienced editor who believes the subject is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (academics), or maybe WP:NAUTHOR, since he wrote "more than 400 peer-reviewed papers and 10 books or monographs") and the article not at risk of Wikipedia:Speedy deletion can WP:MOVE the sandbox to the mainspace whenever they want. I suggest adding more links to help out readers who don't know what all of those long words mean, and of course after it's in the mainspace, it should get the usual categories added. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on what I wrote before, the article is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G15, with multiple nonsensical citations. The topic does seem notable however. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give an example of a nonsensical citation? Every ref in Draft:Philip E. Cryer has a working URL that leads to a page containing his name, so the sources exist. I checked the first four refs (in the lead), and each of them directly support the sentence they follow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation 5 and 8 resolves to a different article related to him. Citation 6 and 7 do not resolve. Two of the working citations were added by ERcheck. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation 5 contains four links, which point to three different pages (alternately relevant, broken, and irrelevant).
    Citation 7 only has a bad link. The paper is at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002870381904087. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of RfC: Gender exploratory therapy and conversion therapy

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing RfC at NPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cedars-Sinai Medical Center edit request

    [edit]

    Hi editors, as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, I am proposing updates to the Cedars-Sinai article that I believe will help streamline and be an overall improvement. Editors here might be interested in my request to update its early history. Thanks! Danilo Two (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Clostridial necrotizing enteritis and Necrotizing enterocolitis. -- Improve articles. Merge?

    [edit]

    We have an article on Clostridial necrotizing enteritis (CNE) and we have an article on Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

    The article Clostridial necrotizing enteritis seems to switch indiscriminately between using the abbreviation CNE and using the abbreviation NEC. Is this wrong or confusing?

    Should these articles be merged or the relationship between CNE and NEC be made more clear?

    - ~2025-33172-44 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @~2025-33172-44, CNE and NEC are different things. All of the NEC information was added to CNE by a new editor, and none of it belongs in the CNE article. You could WP:SPLIT it out to the NEC article (assuming that it's not already duplicated there). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Premethylenomycin C lactone "New antibiotic found 'hidden in plain sight'"

    [edit]

    I just created a brief article for Premethylenomycin C lactone. Looks like it may potentially solve the drug resistant bacteria crisis. Thriley (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RfC on gender exploratory therapy as a form of conversion therapy

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing RfC at NPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-specific effect of vaccines

    [edit]

    I notice ripples have been cause by the publication of

    • Støvring H, Ekstrøm CT, Schneider JW, Strøm C (November 2025). "What is actually the emerging evidence about non-specific vaccine effects in randomized trials from the Bandim Health Project?". Vaccine: 127937. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127937. PMID 41233263.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

    which says that the outputs of Drs Benn and Aaby of the Bandim Health Project may exhibit some rather startling instances of questionable research practice.

    Our Non-specific effect of vaccines article is quite reliant on their output (often in non-WP:MEDRS sources), and make some very bold claims indeed about the impact of vaccine NSEs. I am concerned we may not be properly reflecting accepted knowledge in this field or – worse – amplifying some WP:EXCEPTIONALLY questionable/fringe views about vaccines. Bon courage (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of the CDC

    [edit]

    Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CDC revises stance on vaccines and autism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a good reason to have two separate articles that cover H.pylori treatments?

    [edit]

    The article Helicobacter pylori eradication protocols  has been flagged for having multiple issues, one of which is a general lack of citations. Separately, it seems (to me) that some of the content might be AI-generated, which raises other concerns since AI can sometimes "imagine" things that are patently false.


    But there's also a separate, larger article on Helicobacter pylori that's in pretty good shape, and it includes a entire section on H.pylori treatments. So is the other article really needed?  I would propose a merge, but there's so much unsourced material in the "H.pylori eradication" article that a simple move/merge would just send those problems to the larger article.


    Maybe an expert on this could take a look at the ""Helicobacter pylori eradication protocols"" article first to look for any general accuracy issues? Are there are any gastroenterologists (or similar) here who might do this? BetsyRogers (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A merge proposal is probably the right thing here, with a note it should be a very selective merge. I've done merges before where I'm only preserving two sentences and even find newer sources for those. The main article is up-to-date, the subarticle isn't really.
    The subarticle was created in 2007, so AI does not seem to be a big problem here I don't think. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vital Signs 2026

    [edit]

    One of our WikiProject's goal is to get all of our top-importance articles up to B-class or above. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is the attempt to reach that goal by the end of 2026.

    You can now sign up as a participant or as a co-organiser! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    List of polysubstance combinations

    [edit]

    This page seems pretty problematic and potentially dangerous to me. It includes a lot of uncited info about mixing illicit substances, and without extensive reliable sourcing this kind of stuff can kill people. I started a deletion discussion back in June because I was concerned with the fact that the page seemingly promotes the mixing of drugs in ways that they are not prescribed, but the page was kept. I thought I would bring this up here because if the page must be kept, it should at the very least be heavily monitored and edited by people who know about medicine. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Number of page watchers who visited in the last 30 days" for this article is just two (2). If you keep up with your watchlist, please consider adding this to you list.
    @Zefr, would you mind taking a look at the sourcing in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the total 36 sources, there might be 4 worth keeping. Most of the others are poor-quality websites with dubious titles like TRIPS, The Bluntness, Erowid, Narconon, Vice, Zamnesia, American Songwriter, etc., i.e., unreliable. Others are primary research, a decade plus out of date, or in low-quality journals. Seven sources deal with cannabis, seven with MDMA, and about half of the table entries are unsourced, WP:OR.
    A mess of an article, with overlap to Lacing (drugs). Zefr (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Hello,
    Please note that Emergency management, 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, 24 November 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

    Locking clothing

    [edit]

    We have an unsourced article at Locking clothing. I couldn't find sources for it, though it obviously exists. Does anyone have ideas about an alternative name or keywords for search terms? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Outdated

    [edit]

    Editor @SigTif has been systematically removing some but not all "Further reading" entries in many articles with the edit summary "Outdated. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine". There is no post here by "SigTif" and no evidence that the particular entries deletes are in fact "outdated". Its obviously by date, for example These were deleted from Autism

    But this one was not

    More important, I don't see any evidence that these sources have been superseded by new evidence. I think we should have a clearer explanation of these deletions. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026. I put it down in the small tasks, but should have clarified what dated means. That is: biomedical sources that are far from meeting WP:MEDDATE should not remain listed, as we don't want to point readers to potentially wrong information. However, these sources are descriptions of life with autism instead, so don't became dated as fast as medical information does. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another complication with this "simple" task is that historical sources are sometimes listed there (e.g., first-ever description of that disease in a medical journal, which could have been more than a century ago). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnjbarton per WP:MEDDATE In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. This does not apply to non BIOMED info such as history and some aspects of the society and popular culture sections.
    I think removing older further reading sources is a great idea, however i do not think that lived experience or history sources should be removed. luckily this seems to be a minority of the further reading sources so for the most part removing them is appropriate.
    @sigtif just keep an eye out for sources focused on the societal aspects of the disorder as those may be relevant regardless of date as they are not regularly updated. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @IntentionallyDense I stand by my claim that these specific deletes were inappropriate. They did not fit the criteria you outlined. Furthermore, none of the deletions I reviewed were accompanied by updated alternatives. As far as I can tell, these edits did not contribute towards your goal. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed with you (and still do) that removing the lived experiences sources wasn’t necessary i was just also responding to the first part of your comment has been systematically removing some but not all "Further reading" entries in many articles with the edit summary "Outdated. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine". There is no post here by "SigTif" and no evidence that the particular entries deletes are in fact "outdated".
    i was just trying to clarify that the removal of outdated further reading sources is in fact a good thing but just not when the sources aren’t WP:BIOMED so that no one got confused. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ok thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For MEDDATE (think "Wonderpam is the first-line treatment for scaryitis"), we usually don't remove sources unless the content of the Wikipedia article is probably wrong (e.g., the editor happens to know that Wonderpam got banned last year, or that Superwonderpam is now preferred). In that case, we remove the outdated information and the outdated source.
    The hierarchy is something like this:
    • Best: good source published during the last five or so years.
    • Good enough: good source, even if it's a bit old
    • Bad: Unsourced content, because that source was six years old, so I removed it as being potentially outdated and left the potentially outdated contents in the article.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make this clear, i don’t advocate the removal of used sources due to date alone, however with the further reading section its a bit different since it shouldn’t be verifying any of the info. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my thinking too. A 20-year old source on biomedical information will likely contain at least some inaccurate information. For some conditions, it'll only be minor, whereas for others, the entire field is reversed. If biomedical sources in further reading are older than say 10 years, they fall in my 'should likely be removed' bucket. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion the criteria should be solely evidence from sources. If more reliable sources are available, then they should be used. If not, the existing sources that verify content are still valid. There is no basis for removing a source solely based on age. There are many older sources more reliable than some newer sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the key factor here is that these sources were in the further reading section meaning they were not used to verify any information, if the source was actually used in the article to verify information, it absolutely should not be removed without replacing it on just the basis of date however that isn’t the case with the further reading sources. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Family Constellations

    [edit]

    A recent edit [5] to this article cites a 2021 'systemic review' [6] of this controversial form of psychotherapy to justify removal of a sourced 'pseudoscience' descriptor. Given the extraordinary claims being made regarding the therapy, we clearly need to ensure the source is actually WP:MEDRS-compliant, and is otherwise being used appropriately. I have reverted the edit for now, and started a discussion at Talk:Family Constellations#'Systemic review' edit. Input from those more familiar with the topic and applicable WP:MEDRS policy would be much appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be
    • Konkolÿ Thege B, Petroll C, Rivas C, Scholtens S (June 2021). "The Effectiveness of Family Constellation Therapy in Improving Mental Health: A Systematic Review". Fam Process. 60 (2): 409–423. doi:10.1111/famp.12636. PMID 33528854.
    From the conclusion:

    ... the low number of identified studies in the present work prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of family constellation therapy, we argue that summarizing the scarce evidence accumulated in the previous almost three decades is necessary to inspire and orient further, muchneeded research in this area.

    IOW, there is no good evidence it works. The authors' (primary) hopium is irrelevant for the purposes of writing this article. Bon courage (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. It would probably be better to discuss this on the article talk page, rather than here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please join us at Talk:Family Constellations#'Systemic review' edit. where we are discussing some problems, such as the fact that none of the cited sources actually use the word pseudoscience to describe this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Med resources template on anatomy articles

    [edit]

    There's been a question raised over at {{medical resources}} (talk) whether it would be useful to add the template to anatomy articles.[7] Having only used it to add ICD codes, I'm at the limit of my knowledge. Nor do I want to speak for WP:MED. Is anyone able to chime in as to the usefulness of adding such data to anatomy articles, please? (User has been asked to post at WP:ANAT to see if they are comfortable with the template's use.) Little pob (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my analogous question at WT:ANAT#Use template Medical resources in anatomical articles. Ion Soggo (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Pediatric gynaecology#Requested move 18 November 2025

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pediatric gynaecology#Requested move 18 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Heterochromia iridum#Requested move 26 November 2025

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heterochromia iridum#Requested move 26 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Need input over at DYK

    [edit]

    See: Template:Did you know nominations/KCNH1-related disorders, an omnibus review of three separate nominated articles: KCNA2-related disorders, KCNH1-related disorders, and Okur-Chung Neurodevelopmental Syndrome. I've only just begun copyedits to the articles, but more help would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for MEDRS review – Esmethadone article

    [edit]

    Hello,

    I am requesting review of an edit proposal on the Esmethadone article concerning its development status. Current text:

    "As of December 2024, phase 3 clinical trials for this indication were discontinued due to the potential of eye disorders, mitochondrial disorders, neuropathic pain and Rett syndrome."

    This is unclear and incomplete. Proposed replacement:

    >: The Esmethadone program was returned to original licensors Charles Inturrisi and Paolo Manfredi by Relmada Therapeutics on July 7, 2025. >: Levomecor Inc. has taken over development for adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder. >: Two Phase 3 trials terminated in December 2024 did not meet the Day 28 primary endpoint, but showed rapid Day 7 antidepressant efficacy, supporting continued development.

    Sources:

    Your MEDRS-compliant review would be greatly appreciated.

    Here is the Talk page discussion: Talk:Esmethadone

    Chiaralm95 (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds like something their marketing department would prefer. I take it that you've been hired by the company? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I’m not affiliated with the company. I only want to correct factual inaccuracies, and I’m happy to remove or rephrase anything that seems promotional. I would appreciate guidance on the most neutral wording.
    Chiaralm95 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ICD11 codes for broader conditions

    [edit]

    As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026, one goal is get all the ICD-11 codes into our top-importance articles. A question has come up at the talk page on how to do this for broad conditions like addiction (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Vital_Signs_2026#ICD-11_codes), which could use people chiming in. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

    [edit]

    For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

    There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

    Active merge discussions

    [edit]

    There are a few merge discussions related to this project that need attention:

    Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that list. I participated in the 2nd discussion (cardiopulmonary exercise test vs cardiac stress test) and it seemed to go back and forth. There are pros and cons to merging, and there didn't seem to be a clear consensus either way. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for guidance on factual update – Esmethadone

    [edit]

    Hello,

    I previously posted an edit request on the Talk:Esmethadone page regarding a strictly factual (non-medical) update about the development program: specifically, the transfer of the esmethadone program, the identity of the current sponsor, and the administrative status of the Phase 3 trials.

    I want to ensure the update fully complies with MEDRS and MOSMED, and I am deliberately avoiding any efficacy or clinical claims.

    The original request is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Esmethadone

    If possible, could an experienced medical editor advise on:

    • whether these administrative details can be included with primary sources (SEC filing, company information), and
    • how to phrase the update in the most neutral and policy-compliant way?

    Thank you very much for your time and help. Chiaralm95 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chiaralm95 I see that you have submitted this same request a few days ago already, and that you have not made a very strong case thus far. Can you quickly confirm again whether you have edited from the account User:Chiara95bio before and can you elaborate on what your "potential COI" consists of exactly? YuniToumei (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thank you for your message.
    1. I can confirm that I have never edited using the account “User:Chiara95bio”, nor am I connected to that account. This is my only account.
    2. Regarding potential COI: I do not have any financial, professional or contractual relationship with any company or person involved. I mentioned “potential COI” only out of caution, because I know that pharmaceutical topics require extra transparency. I am simply trying to correct factual administrative information in the article, not add anything promotional or clinical.
    If any part of my request was unclear or seemed inappropriate, I am completely open to withdrawing it or adjusting it according to guidance from experienced medical editors.
    Chiaralm95 (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chiaralm95, I find both of these points very hard to believe considering you stated before that you "have changed [your] username", that the two accounts have very similar current names, that User:Chiara95bio was formerly called the name of the company and, most of all, that the edit requests are formulated pretty much exactly the same. I suggest that you let this rest for the moment. I would also recommend that you avoid using LLMs to communicate on talk pages in the future, in case that applies. YuniToumei (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to your original request here (asking for clarification). BetsyRogers (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Requested Articles" page

    [edit]

    I was looking through the Requested articles/Medicine page, and had a couple of questions. First, if we find an article that's pretty close to the requested topic (i.e. an alternate name for the same thing, or an article with a dedicated section on the topic), would it be appropriate to just create a redirect pointing to that article? Second, a few of the requested articles on the list don't really merit a separate article but would be appropriate as an article section. For example, "Laparotomy sponge" (an entire article on that?). Seems like that would be better suited as a section in an existing article, or maybe a Wiktionary definition. What's the process for filtering out the requests that probably shouldn't have a standalone article? BetsyRogers (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]