1340:(e.g. scientific journal articles) of primary is encouraged" without reference to scientific topics in particular (why not physics, maths or astronomy??) is a better wording to me. Why don't you bring your suggestion to the talk page? It should be noted that by Knowledge's own definitions, Medical journals articles are neither "original research" ("unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" or "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"), nor are they "unreliable" (reliable sources: "credible published materials with a reliable publication process"), so for the most part, these concerns are unfounded. I don't think they fit Knowledge's definition of Primary sources either, which refers mostly to historical documents. Examples cited are: "archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires;
3540:
have available to us. And if we were publishing a paper we would reference this source. Pretty simple. But, Knowledge is different, partly because of the various audiences but also because of the need for transparency (to maintain quality). Seeing the sources allows us to check for accuracy based on the resources we have available to us and our clinical knowledge. Without a citation, we have no way of verifying accuracy. This is why I would prefer sources to be cited as long as they meet the other criteria (they write their own content, it is written by medical professionals, and their reference their sources). Do you agree with my rationale because it seems like a pretty simple criteria to measure the quality of a secondary (or tertiary) source?
3491:. A list of symptoms was referenced with a WebMD article. However, the reference was removed, leaving the article with an unsourced list of symptoms that came from WebMD. If the content wasn't accurate, then the whole symptoms list should have been removed along with the reference. If the content was good, the best thing to do would have been to replace the reference to a more reliable source. It is unacceptable to orphan content from their sources. At the very least, if you are going to remove WebMD references, replace them with citation needed tags (or, if the content is disputed, better yet remove the inaccurate content and the poor source).-
2764:"Other patients with PHN may have severe, spontaneous pain without allodynia, possibly secondary to increased spontaneous activity in deafferented central neurons or reorganization of central connections. An imbalance involving loss of large inhibitory fibers and an intact or increased number of small excitatory fibers has been suggested. This input on an abnormal dorsal horn containing deafferented hypersensitive neurons supports the clinical observation that both central and peripheral areas are involved in the production of pain..."
3528:
Yes I did remove several references from WebMD. The reason -- WebMD uses licensed material created by
Healthwise, a company that licenses content to several hundred other web sites. In other words, it is syndicated content similar to AP or Reuters. In these cases, we could just as easily use one of the university sites that also use Healthwise as a reference (I am not advocating that). What I am advocating is that we limit the use of licensed or syndicated content as references.
3048:
make it a less credible site? I would recommend before making a judgment, read their about page to see how they create content. Before using them as a reference, I did and have recommended them to a number of my patients because their information is well written and accurate. What I gather is that this is an organization that has health care providers overseeing the quality and accuracy of their content and have an editorial process in place.
4494:
31:
1360:
based on RS (a while back) and I believe the views on
Primary and Secondary sources apply to medicine just as much as history or science, for example. Perhaps there is a middle ground were we encourage editors to cite primary (often seminal) papers inline but back this up with review articles/textbooks listed as References where they have been used by the editor to confirm his interpretation (if any) of the primary material.
3044:
in medical school but maybe I am wrong. I then read the article about arthritis which had no references. I then read an article about ibuprofen which says that priapism is a common side effect (which it is not). Furthermore, the article did not include one of the most common side effects, which is an unexplained rash. So I decided to not only make the information more accurate but added references to support my changes.
2215:
1344:;". Furthermore, an example of a secondary source is "n historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus," which can certainly be a "primary source" journal articles. Further removed sources, because of their accessibility, continue to have advantages, but it is a Good Thing to be able to credit the originators of novel ideas.
189:
3534:(assuming a better medical reference is not available). My rationale is that they write their own content, it is written by medical professionals, their provide references, and based on my experience it is generally accurate. I believe that sites that license their content, such as a WebMD, Wrong Diagnosis, or a host of others do not have a place here.
1497:. If that's the issue, then I don't think anyone would object to retitling the article and focusing it on the case and its impact on legal and ethical issues. I have to admit, I find the speedy deletion of articles which violate an individual admin's conception of "basic human dignity" to be dangerous ground, but that's an issue for another place.
4108:) is too busy in meatspace, and several other high-powered contributors have had to spread themselves a bit thinner. This is a reality on Knowledge. However, over the last few months the MCOTW has fizzled out a bit. Fewer articles are nominated, there are fewer votes, the articles turn around less frequently, receive fewer edits, and rarely make
2584:) to cite, but there is still some rewriting to be done, and I would welcome more competent input on this. I'm probably a bit too jaded and tend to be skeptical of any claims of extraordinarily severe adverse effects when uncited and freshly-added, so please enlighten me as this appears to be that ever so rare legitimate additionĀ :) Thanks,
2110:. I realize I could make a redirect page but I find the latter term less informative and less precise, and no more useful for the general lay reader. I plan to rename it Diagnostic test and will set up a redirect from Medical test, unless anyone here has a strong and persuasive objection. I got no responses when i posted this on the
2845:
1278:
because no article can exist that is not based on some amount of existing work. I certainly agree that review articles/material should be encouraged, if only because that material is generally more directly accesible, and can provide of otherwise difficult to locate further material. The couple review sources I used for
269:. The website has an impressive list of dermatologists on its board, has advertising/promotion editorial policies (stating adhere to international medical journal guidelines), and the pages on use of various agents seem comprehensive. Seeing these links, I had a number of thoughts - what do others think?
3800:
But, with that being said, in the future I would not use this source because this site does not meet the minimum criteria I mentioned last night for online sources. This criteria includes the article being the original work of the website referenced (not licensed or repurposed content), it is written
3758:
by definition is original text. It is not text housed on another site for which a fee is paid. Therefore, I cannot see how it is ever appropriate to cite a
Website for which content is not their own original work. If WebMD or a host of other sites did not write the information, they are not a source,
3527:
Well if nothing else I think this has been a productive discussion. JFW you bring up some great points. I absolutely agree that evidenced-based medicine is the only way to go and that these principals will lead to higher quality information. And as always I will be transparent with why I do things.
3458:
Andrew C, there is consensus here that we should work on better sources for facts presently referenced to sites like WebMD, Wrongdiagnosis etc etc. Whether these are secondary or tertiary doesn't bother me. The fact is that
Knowledge is mature enough not to let itself be guided by the whims of those
2783:
I've been trying to do some housecleaning on a number of entries among plastic surgeons (my field) that have been starting to pop up. There are a handful of "bios" of people not particularly notable in a historic sense creeping into wikipedia. The "quality" of some of these physicians' CV varies, but
2142:
No doubt you have noticed that the icon used for computer diagnostic tests is typically a stethoscope? I would assume that if someone wants to write about computer diagnostic tests the appropriate title would be "Diagnostic tests (computer)". Anyway, I do not intend to change or mess with categories.
3055:
I would welcome your thoughts because this is not just about my choice of reference locations, it is about using Mayo Clinic and a number of other sites that are credible sources of information. Furthermore, what I found interesting with your edits is that you did not take down the information that
3051:
So this then bodes the question about the definition that
Knowledge uses for credible sources and it is as follows: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure
2368:
As authors get better at linking content back to source articles at PubMed, the underlying wiki markup becomes much more tedious to edit. I think the markup is going to get so unmanageable at to drive away prospective authors. In addition, I am starting to see the problem where one article at PubMed
1514:
I was aghast at the yield of an "external link hunt" to the nefarious site
Wrongdiagnosis.com. This is a database-driven website that randomly regurgitates lists of symptoms and diagnoses. The algorithm and its methodology are not obvious; the content is certainly not the result of medical knowledge
1359:
I'm a bit puzzled by the idea that the comments in MEDRS "implicitly discourage" PubMed references since PubMed isn't mentioned at all. PubMed indexes medical articles, which may be primary or secondary sources. They may be research, letters, biographies, book reviews, case notes, etc, etc. MEDRS is
1171:
In general, Knowledge's medical articles should use published reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may be used only with great care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be
3539:
Now in order of priority, citing the literature is always going to be the first choice. However, I would not go to the literature (in most cases) if I were looking up things like symptoms, causes, or diagnosis. As you know, we would go to
Harrison's or one of the many other reference books that we
3466:
how medicine is practiced. Good doctors base their practice on evidence-based publications, not on hearsay or outdated factoids once crammed in medical school. Good CME is literature-based rather than expert-based. We should aim to follow these trends. One of the ills of modern medicine is the fact
3047:
And regarding the quote from above "I am immediately struck by the familiar waffle of ad-supported health sites - no references, no name of the author let alone his/her qualifications, and no indication that it is supported by professional organisations," -- Mayo Clinic's website has ads. Does this
3043:
But I would like to respond to some of the comments make in the posts above. First of all, come down a little off the better written, etc. I decided to start interacting with
Knowledge after I read in the Hypertension article that pregnancy in males is a complication of HTN. I don't remember this
2068:
The use of the drugs bits (indications and perhaps overdose) are swamped in coverage by the cultural/controversy sections. The article is therefore totally unbalanced just on length of sections, let alone tone. However the cultural/controversy sections seem well sourced, albeit too gloomy, but does
1604:
The external links tool is very handy, though it's utterly disheartening to realize just how many times mercola.com or reviewingaids.org are linked (the last one has been cut down considerably, at least). If wrongdiagnosis.com is an issue, we could also consider proposing it to be added to the spam
309:
Hi David, thank for your comment. Iām new to
Knowledge and might have overdone it with placing several links to the same resource. Just wanted to be more specific with my references by linking to a page that deals with the current subject rather than to a website home page. Iāve removed almost all
2970:
A small group of editors has simultaneously started adding content with the use of EMedTV.com as a reference. Reviewing the website I am immediately struck by the familiar waffle of ad-supported health sites - no references, no name of the author let alone his/her qualifications, and no indication
1431:
problems arising. Secondary sources can be encouraged in the guideline to make certain that medical/scientific consensus is presented, but I think the most important point to emphasize is that (regardless of the source) the content presented in the article, whether held by consensus or a minority
1277:
I didn't think scientific journals were necessarily considered primary sources. Mostly, it means that care should be exerted when using recent, sweepingly new results, but I've never seen people objecting to theuse of scientific journals on the base of them being "primary sources." I guess this is
682:
is not a licence to revert 3 times and get away with it - even 1 revert can be sufficient disruptive to warrent action). The multiple edits in each case of
Haloperidol and Akathisia were such disruptions and I have blocked the user for 24hrs. Having previously held back from further systematically
4168:
I'd be interested in being more active if we can revive it. The only barrier I have to contributing is that I keep getting sidetracked (well, that and grant deadlines are approaching). It would be good to sound out how many people are active enough to participate. I would actually look forward to
3805:
is that it does an excellent job outlining quality sources, except for online sources where it just names a couple of acceptable sources. I am looking to promote discussion to see if we might be able to provide more clarity for online sources, eliminate some of the subjectiveness, and ultimately
3038:
I have been the one that has been using eMedTV as a reference. Why, because as a practicing physician, I have always found their information to be accurate, up to date and transparent when it comes to their editorial process, including the healthcare providers that oversee their content and their
1836:
Why don't you affirm the new jfdwolff motto - all links are guilty until proven innocent - however I appreciate that you have discussed whether this link should appear with others - if the prevailing opinion is that it is inappropriate (and not discussed) than I accept that - convsersely removing
1297:
It seems like a non-sensical sentiment to dismiss pubmed indexed articles as preferred sources. I agree, however, that people who are unfamiliar with some areas will use refs. out of context to prove this or that. The expertise of editors in some of these specialty areas helps to filter the wheat
284:
Does the information differ from just product licensing information (for which there are standard parameters in the Drugbox template to link to the FDA's own pages), i.e. is the information any different from the product information on any number of pharmacy websites that generally get removed as
4251:
We should make it much easier to nominate an article. The "needs 2 votes to remain in consideration" parameter is totally unneccessary as we get just a few nominations. In a lot of cases, I had to find a new collaboration myself. Just an aticle name + a date + the nominator's name, that's all we
3836:
appropriate sources in a given situation (eg of course a newspaper article would be valid if making a point about public awareness or attitude to an item). So I think the above discussion should form a useful introduction to relooking at how firmly WP:MEDRS might be tightened-up or rephrasedĀ :-)
3835:
had quite a long and difficult time being formulated at all (in particular whether if 2 equally good sources, should an online one take precidence over a hard-copy-via-library one). So it was left somewhat imprecise whilst it "bedded-down" and people might see how it would help or hinder finding
3619:
for WP articles (whereas eMedTV isnt). It is a whole lot better than a newspaper, for example. By "adequate" I mean that it meets WP's threshold, but isn't ideal. This project strongly encourages editors to find and use better sources. We would certainly expect our best (featured) articles to be
3439:
As far as I can tell, WebMD articles are attributed to an author (see very bottom where often states which group of doctors reviewed article and who is last reviewer) and therefore seem more like a secondary source (which is acceptable), very much like eMedicine, although written for a different
2919:
only to run into resistance from some of the transgender folks who are very protective (like most of us) of any articles on doctors related to their pet issues. Dr. Meltzer is kind of a super-teriary specialist in trans-gender operations from patients who travel to him in Arizona. This practice
2904:
I'm interested in some feedback from peers. On biography pages, is it appropriate to contain links to a doctor's personal webpage? In particular, with fee for service areas of medicine like Plastic Surgery, a practice website is mostly an advertising vehicle. In the guideline for external links
1316:
thing). In cases where 1 study has showed an effect, but dozens of others have confirmed that the effect does not exist, selective citation is a danger. I don't think we should deprecate primary sources (since they're so vital to explaining any medical topic), but I do think we should insist on
1311:
The danger with favoring, or relying on, primary sources is that you're depending on the expertise and insight of the editor to use and interpret them appropriately. For instance, a primary source stating that a compund shrinks human tumors engrafted in NOD/SCID mice may be presented as "XXX is
3533:
Despite me bringing up Mayo Clinic (it was to illustrate a point about advertising), I do not think that their site warrants removing their references. This is because I would argue that it would be more appropriate to use a nonsyndicated site reference, such as a Mayo Clinic, if one is needed
2296:
I've speedy-deleted it under CSD A3 (short article that does not provide context). If there's some independent literature on heart shift that could be used to expand the article, we could re-create it, but this is at best a self-explanatory finding that could be described briefly in the bigger
3732:
Just to put the record straight, I agree that the wholesale removal of references is not right so I think we are all in agreement with this. This weekend, I will be updating the references for the ones that I recently removed. I do however believe that in some cases references are absolutely
3394:
I came here because I saw the deletion of sourced by Sailormd. If you are going to remove sources as problematic, it would be best if you replaced them with a reliable source, while it is more work, it clearly improves the encyclopedia. If you cannot add a source to replace the source you are
642:
that those accounts are sockpuppets of Dr CareBear, and I've blocked the sockpuppet accounts. I'm not going to take any action against Dr CareBear, as I'm involved in the editing dispute, but I think at the next sign of disruption we should request an outside admin to look things over via
3780:. As you all know, I used eMedTV as a reference because I viewed them as a reliable source per the WP definition (health care providers overseeing the content creation, an editorial process in place, and accurate information for the sources I used based on my clinical judgment) - see
2015:
No, I think you're right (but then, I think that about 99% of the pharmaceutical articles on Knowledge, and I'm no drug-company defender). The "Abuse" section should be folded into the "Dependence" section, and the "Crime" section is utterly ludicrous. Benzos "have been used by serial
1365:
I feel we should also say something to discourage citing a primary source to confirm a fact that the editor only knows through reading a secondary source. The citation may include the primary source but should also say "as cited by ..." to give details of the actual source used by the
1623:
I don't think WrongDiagnosis is being spammed. I'm slowly trawling through the search and ticking off article references to WD in favour of academic sources. Mercola has been spammed in the past, and if you think Reviewinaids is being spammed it should definitely go on the blacklist.
4018:
and attempt to resolve the red links, consolidate them into some semblance of categories (I drew the lists from two different sources), and eliminate conditions that aren't worthy of mention? I'm not a physician or a medical professional, so some of them are Greek to me. Thanks,
1837:
links without discussion is not always constructive. Besides anything else I am as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, however I resent being called a spammer for disagreeing with a single administrator. One more point, blood cultures are inherently application specific.
4460:
I have improved a lot this article in the last month and IĀ“m thinking of nominating it for good article. I have asked for a scientific peer review; but I would appreciate any comments on how to improve it both in contents and style. The discussion page for the peer review is:
3910:
Excellent. By the way, drop me a note when you're going to start on the pancreatic cancer article. I've been a little swamped in real life, but would like to work on it, and it's always easier if others are on board at the same time so we can bounce ideas and sources around.
1068:
article covers clinical mycology in general (mycology culturing and treatment) and covers not just fungal ringworm on the skin (a specific appearance/presentation), but also lists as subtypes being fungal nail infection & athletes foot (neither of which form rings), and
3470:
I applaud SailorMD for rigorously applying these principles. I would again like to stress that often, a little bit of PubMed sleuthing will provide a dedicated contributor with the right reference in the literature where facts were previously referenced to some website.
800:
I'm looking for more legit Wiki content that describes the issue in greater detail. I do not want to see a skeletal article used as springboard for Scientology and antipsychiatry bashing of Psychiatric disorders. A BiP section had to be removed for this exact reason.
213:
We should be more possessive of our own category. Presently, it populated with articles that often have little or no relevance to medicine, or are better categorised in subcategories. I've just spent a good few hours depopulating it. Anyone willing to help?
3961:
version. One question (and pardon my ignorance on the classification of ASDs): the final line of your table is "Exclusion of other disorder", while the Mattila table is "Exclusion of autistic disorder" - would it be more correct to say "Exclusion of other
3467:
that people follow diagnostic and therapeutic protocols without having appraised the evidence base behind them. Again, citing directly from the literature will shorten the distance between encyclopedia content and the aggregated body of medical knowledge.
1319:"The use of primary sources (e.g. journal articles) is encouraged on medical topics, but interpretations of these sources should hew carefully to that presented by the authors or by reliable secondary sources such as review articles and medical textbooks."
2605:
Should be mentioned, but with the proper amount of weight - there have been ~ 30 case reports, which would make this a fairly rare complication given how widely used propofol is. Nonetheless it would appear to warrant mention. Good find with the source.
3596:
I fail to see why "WebMD uses licensed material created by Healthwise" is a valid reason for removing references. What has the licensing or syndication of content got to do with whether it is a reliable source or not? By the standards of WP, WebMD is a
4014:; a massive rewrite is underway (but the end of summer timing stinks). We haven't yet touched the top of the article (working from the bottom up), so cover your eyes there. Can others please look at the massive list of differentials I've added to
2479:
I use Dave Iberri's tool as well, it makes references much easier. It would be much nicer to create the reference using the PMID, and have the formatting done later. The format could potentially a setting specific to how each user likes to view
2069:
any source state that another source's "gloom & doom" is wrong - is it possible to cite to regain a NPOV in these sections? Separately should these sections perhaps be pulled out from the clinical/pharmacology sections -Ā ? a subtopic page, eg
3503:
The fact that content is loosely cited from WebMD does not invalidate the content. On the contrary, the content is likely to be correct. I urge you to adhere to the consensus formed on this page and not pursue your own agenda as you have done on
3066:
I do not dispute the information on eMedTV. Most of it is probably accurate, much like Knowledge. But there is no way of knowing when nobody puts his name to it. Given that the content is based on other sources, why can't we preferentially cite
3975:
Thanks for the help! Not sure; if you look at the list of exclusions in the footnotes of the table, they aren't all autistic disorders, so in the interest of not completely duplicating their text and violating copyright, I dropped that word.
3304:
Didn't we just spend a day discussing the appropriateness of tertiary sources on Knowledge? This issue was never whether the information was right or wrong; just the use of citations. And your position was that if poor from the perspective of
3024:
Indeed uncredited by author, without references and just a tertiary source that fails to add to wikipedia's generally better (better written, better referenced and cross-linked to other articles) articles. These links need to be taken down.
2499:
I'm up against some single-purpose accounts who want to keep all ataxia-related content in a single article. I can see the arguments on both sides, but the process could really benefit from some experienced editors offering their feedback.
683:
undoing his POV pushing, now having blocked the user it would be inappropriate for me to edit these articles further on these points. Please other wikiproject members, help MastCell with the task of proof-checking the relevant articles.
3414:
edit: That WebMD link is a lay reader-friendly news report on the study findings. The original, arguably more reliable source (i.e. the study itself) is also cited in the article; why remove the WebMD ref? (Which, by the way, is a
1722:
Perhaps Eubulides could be prevailed upon to clean up and merge the entire walled garden. MastCell - this has been my assessment of Ombudsman's work since the beginning. You must be aware of the exchanges we had a few months ago.
3675:
as as source. Removing material or sources that meet WP policy and guidlines could be considered vandalism. Editors should be careful to improve an article, not just delete the bits that aren't up to their personal standards.
1256:
I wonder whether that's an old policy which is now outdated as the 'pedia continues to grow in depth. I don't worry about it myself and often use primary sources as do many others. Have a look at alot of FA nominees.cheers,
3217:
Maybe I am missing something here but I see over 500 links to WebMD and 351 for MayoClinic. A number of these I briefly scanned seem to fall into the tertiary source area. I also did a quick search for wrongdiagnosis.com.
3056:
I added. Why? If my sources are inaccurate, then doesn't this make the information I added inaccurate. If so, I will be more than happy to return the information back to the way it was before I caused all this controversy.
949:
Has not even been accepted for peer review yet? I'd be very wary of having that here. I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the creator, and it may well become a recognized, notable entity in time. However, as of now...
2192:
2576:
article concerning it, describing it as "one of the most feared side effects" and "associated with a high mortality". I found several seemingly reputable articles after a quick PubMed search and chose a comprehensive one
3867:
a while ago, but I suspect not many are looking at that page very often. I would appreciate everyone's votes, and perhaps we can tackle that article in the near future. Hmmm, eyesore, isn't that allergic conjunctivitis?
2143:
Some other people seem to want to reorganize everything every year or so, so I don't waste much time worrying about categorization as long as we have appropriate redirects so people looking for an article can find it.
1219:
Good secondary sources base their info from primary sources. I think Knowledge has enough people with expertise to deliver nuanced interpretations of primary sources that can compete handily with respected secondary
4147:
Before embarking on this journey, I'd like to get some soundings from this WikiProject. Are the above proposals realistic? Are there any people who presently encounter barriers in contributing? Do we need to start a
1916:
be damned. External links do need to justify their existence; they're generally the least encyclopedic or worthwhile part of an article, yet generate the most heat. On a related note, we should work on improving the
3637:
No, WebMD is not suitable as a reference. It is reasonably referenced and probably reliable for a layperson, but why not go for the gold and sidestep this "content for sale" stuff. Also, just look at the "shingles"
101:. To have an NPOV article on this politically sensitive condition would be a triumph for Knowledge's collaborative editing (perhaps somewhat of a holy grail). Anyone interested in some heavy-duty collaboration?
4169:
doing some non-controversial editing at this point. I have online access to most reasonably high-impact journals, and can help provide text to those who lack such access, within the bounds of copyright issues.
1372:
I'm pleased that MEDRS is starting to be discussed. It is not ready to become a guideline without much further work and discussion from project members. Should this discussion be moved to MEDRS's talk page?
4462:
1967:
768:) as to whether we need a page on this topic and which critics should be quoted in which fashion. I am still not entirely sure what is wrong with the present article, but your opinion would be appreciated.
1594:
deleting all the links as well. I also agree with Andrew, that special page showing the external links is very good. Makes for a easy way of removing spam from wiki articles, from known spam sites i would
3696:". Wholesale removal or sources which fail neither policy nor guideline, while higher-quality sources are still unavailable (i.e. haven't been searched for, let alone added to the article), is borderline
3284:
with help from Tim Vickers, I decided any text added recently and sourced to Mayo probably wasn't worth having; since I'm not a physician, maybe one of you can have a look at the Mayo content I removed?
784:
I dunno about the conflict, but reading the article, I just realized I'm suffering from motivational deficiency disorder! I wish my doctor had diagnosed it sooner. I think it's become pretty refractory.
1423:." Anything else placed in an article should be labeled as a minority view or one that is not accepted by the established consensus. As long as this principle is followed, then I do not foresee major
234:
2416:
Dave Iberri's tool has made this slightly less tedious, but I still warmly support any move that will make it easier to cite indexed papers. The possibilities, once this is implemented, are endless!
2518:, and the IP edits in ataxia-related pages today are mine (I forgot to sign in earlier today, and since I have dynamic IP, a different IP number appears every time I connect. Sorry about that.) --
273:
Knowledge articles should be comprehensive on their own, acting as an indexing to jumping out to external sites is not wikipedia's role (likewise we do not permit external links on each article to
2945:). So long as Toby Meltzer is notable enough for an article, it's probably OK (IMHO) for that article to link to his practice website. However, the link shouldn't appear on other pages, such as
2124:
Being in the health profession, I also associate 'diagnostic tests' with medicine. However, I've also heard it used in the context of diagnosing computer problems. Also, what will you do with
1676:
Thank Heaven, the era of Ombudsman is finally over. The new article is absolutely brilliant and I have no major criticisms. It sounds authoritative, is meticulously sourced, and utterly NPOV.
1407:, and I would be relieved to have some guidelines such as those that are listed. This would become very relevant to topics in dentistry, such as "new-and-improved" products but especially on
3648:
I remain convinced that the only way of finding better references is by removing the dodgy ones. I would hope SailorMD could be so kind as to replace his removed references with better ones.
1119:, I'm happy to do the edits in the next couple of days, but would appreciate any points or issues being raised for me to bear in mind first (eg is "Clinical mycology" the best of terms etc).
1972:
3186:
I have also reverted the articles back to the state they were before I edited them. This is about being transparent. If my sources are unreliable, then the information should be removed.
729:
in accusing others of vandalism for content dispute. Further disrupton should result in extended block to sockpuppeteer, and might (sadly) require semiprotecting of articles for a while.
3864:
3831:
Good summary. Just to clarify, it was not in itself that EmedTV data might be inaccurate, just whether it was an appropriate source (vs say an attributable text book or other website).
2224:
3624:
indicates that there is a spectrum of quality, not a black-and-white rule. Simply removing adequately sourced text or removing the adequate references from text should be discouraged.
4547:
1493:; the issue itself seems notable enough, and it seems the objection is focusing on the person rather than the notable event in which he was involved, per the newish interpretation of
84:
165:
Hello: I created a Userbox for the nephrology project. If there is strong feeling about changing the appearance, we can discuss that on the project talk page. The template is at:
4535:
4530:
4522:
3330:. Information that can be sourced, even though it's not, need not be deleted unless you believe it's inaccurate. If it's likely accurate, you leave the text and find a new source.
72:
67:
59:
2909:, commercial portals are discouraged. I think it's reasonable to equate such a link to a commercial enterprise, and I've seen it treated as such on other MD's bios on wikipedia.
2852:
2114:
page last week and perhaps no one cares. In North America both terms are used and few people don't recognize "diagnostic test". Is it any different elsewhere in the Anglosphere?
1479:. Given that this individual has featured prominently in the debate about the rights to seek alternative medical treatments, I figure this article is notable enough to keep.
1448:
507:
Indeed. I've left him a message with regard to referencing and unnecessary addition of POV/editorialization, and recommending that the above article be recreated in userspace.
196:
2762:
Honestly, if the eMedicine text is written in a way where even a generalist physician finds it difficult to read, it's probably for the best it's been excised from Knowledge.
3231:
Maybe going forward I will spend some time cleaning up the use of tertiary sources and external links. Any assistance from other medical professionals would be appreciated.
994:
2941:, on a biography page, links to websites maintained by the subject of the article are generally accepted, even though they often have a commerical bent to them (again, per
3256:
I must urge all contributors not to delete the referenced content unless it sounds blatantly wrong. Chances are that these resources, while poor from the perspective of
2697:
978:, and a fairly clear self-promotional component. I'd prod it, but it seems clear the author will contest, so when I have a moment I'd be inclined to send it to AfD now.
639:
2812:
Let me know if I'm being too "elitist", I just don't want to dilute inclusion criteria too much. I've tried twice to get (not particularly notable) transgender surgeon
939:. Should this article get deleted? I don't know enough neurology to know if there is more to these conditions and topics, so I invite comment before speedily deleting.
2892:
3309:, then the reference should be removed. I agree with Sandy. If we are going to be consistent, we should evaluate all references and remove as appropriate based on
2927:
2826:
Eh. Nearly all of those articles are resumes, without reliable secondary sources to establish notability, so I'd be fine if they all went away. But that's just me.
4196:
Announce the new collaboration on talk pages such as those from the users that voted, active contributors on previous articles, here, and on related wikiprojects.
3052:
for fact-checking and editorial oversight." So when I made the updates, I took this information from eMedTV and felt that I should reference where I got it from.
1369:
If you read MEDRS, you should see it (attempts to) define what are primary/secondary sources wrt medicine. There most certainly are primary sources in medicine.
3801:
and/or reviewed by medical professionals (who are named), they reference their sources, and of course the information is accurate. What I find when I read the
4510:
2343:
578:
47:
17:
3094:
No. Emedtv doesn't give any indication of authorship, fact checking or peer review: not a reliable source. (Why are the links still in those articles?)
3863:
as the mother of all eyesores. It is presently a hodgepodge of unreferenced POV, bits of random knowledge and some valid points too. I nominated this for
619:
I think we're at the point where we could use the intervention of an outside administrator (as Davidruben and I are both involved in the content issue).
4071:(Medical Collaboration of the Week) was a force to be reckoned with. With breakneck speed and phenomenal collaboration, some high-profile articles like
1298:
from chafe. Secondary sources like standard medical textbooks, positions of health ministries (eg. FDA, health Canada) etc. can be used to bring context
3459:
sites' content purchasers. We have enough manpower and brainpower to get the content directly from that elusive thing called the "medical literature".
2410:
1887:. re "a single administrator", need to be able to discuss and work constructively with any number of editors - now opinions of Jfdwolff and 3 others.
148:
3155:
I have explained my rationale and although not answered what it appears like to me is that this group would rather no source than a secondary source.
678:
to his talk page. The use of sockpuppets to advance a POV that several editors have indicated as breaching wikipedia style or policy was disruptive (
1707:
article back into shape is a huge step forward. Strong work and kudos for taking on the topic. I will look at the peer review in the near future.
842:
542:
4210:"Journal service" is a good idea. We should have a separate page where editors with access can enlist their names and others can post requests.--
2320:
and would like to invite anyone interested to help expand it. I've got a ton of references sitting around, but I tend to get sidetracked easily.
373:
articles, stating that it is "agonizing", the cause of low compliance of teh drugs, and that these drugs are "exceptionally toxic" - see . I and
348:
is biased towards a production approach used by a specific company, which has been fixed somewhat. In any case, an expert review seems in order.
4358:
article seems to be woefully inadequate in describing even the fundamentals of modern surgery. Is anybody working on expanding this article?
4101:
2188:
2572:
Are any of our resident WikiDocs familiar with this clinical entity? I'm not, and a fire-and-brimstoneish paragraph was recently added to the
2551:
2232:
1432:
viewpoint, must be presented as such. Saying all this, I hope this proposal can eventually be elevated to a guideline with a little work. -
166:
3196:
That's an encouraging link list; I found only one instance of a featured article being invaded by any of these links, and it was recent.
3692:
Sorry, but I'm with Colin on this one. Sure we should go for the gold, but I'd rather have... I don't know, "bronze" in an article than "
3710:
3429:
3351:
SandyGeorgia, do you have diffs for the edits to the TB article where you refactored Mayo Clinic? I'll quite happily have a look at it.
2627:
2594:
2070:
2049:
1844:
1826:
960:
907:
868:
517:
433:
3165:
To make your life easier, I have also provided the links for all those that have WebMD, Mayo Clinic, RevolutionHealth as a reference:
1088:
then perhaps should be overall descriptor or disambiguation of the various conditions prefixed with "tinea" rather than redirecting to
1081:
whilst covering the parasitic fungal, is about the organisms rather than the clinical diseases or the branch of clinical microbiology.
2820:
1960:
3605:: it has an named author, an editor, reviewers, a date and cites its source. That's better than many WP references (compare with the
495:
Yes, I'm all for giving him the benefit of the doubt, as he's clearly a genuine newbie, but things are getting a little out of hand.
3487:
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with most of it. However, I do not applaud some of Sailormd's edits. Take for example
2651:
4234:
making a lot of noise on talk pages of users, projects and portals. We should promote this improved MCOTW on the Community Portal.
1742:
Anyone who is willing to cleanse those particular Augean Stables has my admiration. I'm willing to help out - I've hacked away at
943:
4454:
3399:. In this case, and many others, I believe having the WebMD link is at least better than having nothing, which is now the case. -
3260:, have got it right in most regards. Hey, why not dive into PubMed and see if you can find a suitable academic source instead?!
472:. Furthermore an unusual claim of haloperidol as being potentially excreted as yellow phelgm has also been made in the article
3183:
I am sure that there are other sites that have infiltrated Knowledge. These are just the ones that came to the top of my head.
2373:
1743:
974:
I don't see this meeting speedy-deletion criteria - however, it clearly needs to go. This is a topic with 0 hits in PubMed, no
890:
2744:. My neuroanatomy ain't quite good enough to understand the eMedicine's pathophysiolopgy, so can anyone help rephrase/rewrite
4481:
2380:
WikiPedia has a reference server that maintains a database of citations from PMIDs, ISBNs, LCCs, etc that authors have cited.
2077:
just being a pharmacology page? Finally should this discussion amongst us clinically-interested editors now be moved over to
1408:
1268:
1216:
should be considered supplemental. Primary sources should be explained -- like any good secondary source for the lay public.
590:
569:
460:
850:
This has been making minor waves in the popular press, and our recently-created article seems to be in need of serious TLC.
3169:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Linksearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=%2A.webmd.com&namespace=
610:
are worth a closer look. I've been removing some material that seems blog-like or not directly relevant to clinical use.
3776:
Then it comes down to what is an acceptable source. Several people have said this to be this minimum standard should be a
1477:
1244:
1172:
checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
711:
98:
4152:(contributors with digital journal access locating source material on behalf of others)? All comments very much welcome!
3667:, I know WebMD isn't a good source, and wouldn't choose to use it myself nor recommend it. However, it doesn't fail WP's
288:
Is it spamming to systematically link multiple anti-fungal articles to this external siteĀ ? Would a single link, in say,
4331:
should be mentioned, given some recent case reports that different feeds cause less hepatic fibrosis. Comments invited.
4140:
4040:
has now been fully rewritten, top to bottom, to reflect reliable sources. Review and feedback on the current status at
1652:
1040:
122:
4448:
4415:
4378:
4362:
4341:
4313:
4284:
4265:
4216:
4204:
4175:
4162:
4056:
4031:
4001:
3988:
3970:
3951:
3924:
3904:
3840:
3810:
3715:
3687:
3658:
3631:
3586:
3569:
3544:
3518:
3497:
3481:
3444:
3434:
3405:
3381:
3361:
3342:
3317:
3297:
3270:
3246:
3208:
3190:
3135:
3118:
3106:
3088:
3060:
3029:
3015:
3000:
2959:
2832:
2772:
2756:
2723:
2706:
2690:
2666:
2632:
2612:
2599:
2562:
2540:
2522:
2504:
2484:
2466:
2445:
2426:
2358:
2326:
2303:
2287:
2263:
2199:
2173:
2147:
2137:
2118:
2085:
2063:
2054:
2030:
2009:
1985:
1927:
1891:
1831:
1816:
Perhaps if the company/product merited its own article, but on such a broad article, it's entirely inappropriate IMHO.
1811:
1797:
1760:
1733:
1713:
1686:
1669:
1662:
10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Just to make it clear: I'm just posting the request here, I wasn't involved in the rewrite.
1634:
1611:
1599:
1580:
1568:
1554:
1545:
1535:
1503:
1483:
1459:
1441:
1395:
1380:
1348:
1331:
1302:
1288:
1272:
1248:
1141:
1123:
1051:
1034:
1024:
1006:
984:
965:
912:
873:
824:
805:
791:
778:
733:
720:
687:
665:
653:
625:
614:
593:
572:
555:
522:
501:
483:
463:
438:
403:
389:
352:
333:
323:
299:
247:
224:
178:
155:
133:
111:
2946:
2749:
1860:
765:
536:
3639:
674:
His removal of suspected sockpuppetry note and again of the other warning notices to him is unacceptable. I've added
4501:
4328:
4095:
3642:
2394:
The result is a much trimmer markup that is not clutted by citation details. This also reduces duplicate citations.
1872:
1754:, among others - but it's a big job. The major problem is that the POV is duplicated and forked in so many places.
1412:
476:
345:
38:
1030:
Happy to format references, but not to supply them. They should really be the material used to write the article!
675:
4324:
2868:
2317:
1576:
The site is nothing but a vehicle for enticements by malpractice attorneys. Nothing here should be linked to it.
1473:
1465:
1415:. It seems to me that, by far, the most important item in MEDRS is that an article must "present the prevailing
4403:
article to describe fundamental aspects of modern surgery. I would like to request a peer review to ensure the
3936:
2161:
1803:
Link seems inappropriate to me, too - entirely too application-specific for an article on a general topic like
329:
No opinion on the remaining links themselves, just wanted to say, commendable action, removing your own links.
311:
278:
274:
3553:
Mayo Clinic has gotten dramatically better recently, but they still have a bit of subtly incorrect info about
2369:
is cited twice from one page, but with a different ref tag so the article shows up twice in the bibliography.
1999:
is becoming way too "doom & gloom" with regard to a group of drugs most of us prescribe on a daily basis?
1185:, IMHO, are accessible to an interested layperson, with the vast amount of credible medical information (e.g.
4271:
I think MCOTF is now a better descriptor of that page. "Needs 2 votes" is unnecessary and disrupts the cycle.
3612:
Can I just clarify that I've understood JFW, Fvasconcellos and David Ruben's comments correctly: WebMD is an
1848:
3706:
3425:
2623:
2590:
2045:
1822:
1521:
will get you the search results. Could you all help reducing references to this site by replacing them with
1105:
956:
903:
864:
513:
429:
2372:
There is not reason linking to PubMed as to be so difficult. Consider if WP has a system that is sort-of a
1787:
the article. Does anyone see merit in the link that is being added so persistently and without discussion?
4444:
4052:
4041:
4027:
3984:
3947:
3565:
3377:
3338:
3293:
3242:
3204:
3131:
3102:
2784:
I don't want this to really grow like weeds. I tagged a few for propsed deletions if anyone wants to look
2737:
2719:
2686:
2662:
2536:
2354:
2125:
1953:
1751:
1101:
1077:
article covers the general biological topic (rather than as relates to infections and human diseases) and
751:
532:
295:
If appropriate links, should at least the formating be a little more formalised under cite web templateĀ ?
4297:
I removed the "needs X votes to remain in consideration" line from the template and the past nominations.
1550:
I'm also concerned with the number of ads on their pages. It may be appropriate to delete their links. --
4091:
1109:
924:
832:
4301:
The only thing left is the new name. Should I rename all of the related pages/templates to fortnight?
3609:). Just to be clear: I'm not encouraging the use of WebMD, just saying it is not an unreliable source.
2740:
article's pathophysiology and epidemiology material for being a direct copyvio undertaken in 2005 from
1130:
1093:
705:
121:
There has been a lengthy discussion about the proper fate of material related to criticism of the U.S.
3939:
and tell me if I altered it enough/left out enough to get away without this being a copyright issue?
2986:. No doubt other articles are also being targeted. Please keep an eye out; I'm discussing one edit on
4469:
4190:
3891:
2554:. Whilst not a signed up participant to this Wikiproject, I'm sure people here will have encountered
1840:
1420:
396:
126:
2558:
helpful and consistent editing on the controversial medical articles of contraception and abortion.
320:
258:
129:
as to whether this content merits a separate page. All are welcome to join the discussion. Thanks. -
4429:
2872:
2799:
2388:
2078:
1781:
1416:
884:
2813:
2787:
2387:
The reference server looks to see if this citation is already in its database, if not, it goes to
4477:
4336:
4279:
4157:
4076:
3899:
3701:
3653:
3513:
3495:
3476:
3420:
3403:
3356:
3265:
3234:
A lot of them aren't article links; I prioritized FAs, and will eventually work on the GA list.
3083:
2995:
2795:
2618:
2585:
2421:
2282:
2259:
2247:
2169:
2153:
2133:
2040:
2004:
1856:
1817:
1792:
1728:
1681:
1629:
1530:
1436:
1262:
1001:
951:
898:
859:
819:
773:
586:
565:
508:
456:
424:
242:
219:
106:
3606:
1596:
3737:, which had previously referenced the definition of a bunion. Why does this require a citation?
2435:
Can we add a feature that will prevent editors from selectively citing 15-year-old papers from
1198:
4437:
4045:
4037:
4020:
4015:
4007:
3977:
3940:
3872:
3558:
3554:
3370:
3331:
3286:
3235:
3197:
3124:
3095:
2712:
2679:
2672:
2655:
2578:
2529:
2514:, but please notice - no single-purpose account involved. I requested the consensus debate at
2347:
2111:
1700:
1280:
1240:
1232:
1213:
207:
3918:
Actually, now that I look again, the layout is not half bad. It just needs a lot of cleanup.
4412:
4359:
4309:
4261:
4201:
4134:
3602:
3179:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.revolutionhealth.com
2274:
2196:
1868:
1156:
1070:
448:
362:
879:
OK, apparently it was a copyvio! It has since been recreated and significantly improved by
4080:
4068:
3883:
3837:
3832:
3802:
3697:
3685:
3677:
3664:
3629:
3621:
3441:
3310:
3306:
3257:
3222:
Occasionally, my patients have brought in info from them and it is most often inaccurate.
3115:
3072:
3026:
2950:
2753:
2559:
2103:
2082:
1983:
1888:
1667:
1660:
1647:
was a featured article, but was demoted in December 2006. It's been rewritten, largely by
1457:
1404:
1378:
1194:
1182:
1152:
1120:
940:
759:
730:
684:
400:
386:
296:
152:
3663:
I think this "content for sale" and SEO stuff is a distraction. As one of the authors of
927:
self states that "the case study" has yet to be published. This implies (1) there is no
851:
4396:
4369:
4211:
3967:
2987:
2858:
2803:
2463:
2407:
2157:
2144:
2115:
2074:
1996:
1876:
1864:
1808:
1648:
1577:
1563:
1389:
Good idea... I thought of that after I'd already commented here. I'll move over there.
1084:
I propose a reorganisation, with Ringworm being about just the specific skin disorder.
932:
880:
644:
545:) (sic), a fairly obvious sockpuppet, has suddenly appeared to take up the edit-war at
444:
413:
349:
266:
3957:
Copyright-wise, I see no difficulties - your table is simply a summary of the Mattila
3754:
The second discussion is what is an appropriate source for medical information on WP.
3174:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.mayoclinic.com
2923:
If anyone has strong feelings on this, please share and chime in that discussion. Rob
4473:
4392:
4374:
4332:
4275:
4171:
4153:
4011:
3998:
3920:
3895:
3807:
3693:
3649:
3583:
3582:
Point taken. The first criteria of course it that the information cited is accurate.
3541:
3509:
3505:
3492:
3472:
3400:
3352:
3327:
3326:
was different because it was just reviewed and rewritten. In general, please review
3314:
3281:
3261:
3187:
3079:
3057:
3011:
2991:
2955:
2924:
2920:
website is how a number of patients are directed to him presumably for his practice.
2862:
2828:
2817:
2768:
2702:
2608:
2501:
2441:
2417:
2322:
2299:
2278:
2255:
2165:
2156:
has got my main concern covered. Anyways, after having cleaned out the overpopulated
2129:
2060:
2026:
2000:
1923:
1918:
1880:
1804:
1788:
1774:
1756:
1724:
1709:
1677:
1625:
1607:
1551:
1542:
1526:
1499:
1494:
1490:
1480:
1433:
1428:
1391:
1327:
1299:
1258:
1138:
1116:
1017:
997:
980:
815:
787:
769:
726:
716:
679:
661:
649:
621:
611:
599:
582:
561:
551:
497:
480:
452:
382:
378:
374:
370:
238:
215:
147:
is nominated for adminship (process concludes 00:00 12th May). To participate, go to
144:
102:
2383:
The author inserts into a Wiki page the wiki markup <ref name="pmid9718051"/: -->
1325:
usage of primary sources while still encouraging their general inclusion. Thoughts?
479:. I'd like to assume good faith, but the content of these edits is quite unusual.
4387:
After practically two months, nobody had made any improvements of substance to the
4109:
4084:
3777:
3672:
3616:
3598:
3323:
3277:
2983:
2979:
2942:
2934:
2913:
2906:
2270:
2107:
1884:
1696:
1424:
1345:
1322:
1285:
1236:
1186:
1031:
975:
928:
701:
409:
130:
1223:
Use of secondary sources from PubMed (i.e. review articles) should be encouraged.
4509:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4433:
4305:
4257:
4193:
is not an article that I expect to be improved a lot by doctors or med students.
4130:
3755:
3668:
2884:
2807:
2791:
2644:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2493:
2481:
1048:
1044:
936:
603:
469:
381:, it seems appropriate to ask other editors for their views to help ensure that
188:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2214:
1312:
highly effective against many human cancers." (Yes, I have been scarred by the
1073:
which has entirely different microorganism (a yeast rather than a fungus) etc.
659:
Now I think we probably ought to go through and make sure the damage is fixed.
4182:
3681:
3625:
3462:
If there is one thing this WikiProject should strive for, it is demonstrating
3411:
2164:
would probably result in a mess. So, I have no objections to your proposal. --
1979:
1747:
1663:
1656:
1453:
1374:
1206:
1097:
1078:
1047:, so I just have to copy/paste them into the article and adjust accordingly.
1021:
802:
755:
397:
User_talk:Davidruben#You_are_Clearly_Attempting_to_Protect_Corporate_Interests
330:
289:
4231:
focusing on medical articles (we should forget about molecular biology, etc.)
1342:
written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations
2975:
2900:
Is it appropriate for for an MD's private practice websites to be linked to?
2741:
2555:
2191:
has been nominated for deletion because of inactivity. Feel free to comment
2024:
strongly associate them with serial killers? Anyhoo, those are my thoughts.
1190:
607:
546:
366:
172:
3806:
improve the quality of the WP product. Does this criteria seem reasonable?
3220:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=*wrongdiagnosis.com&go=Go
2581:
2391:
to retrieve the citation information that will be displayed in teh WP page.
1201:) out there and the strong base of Knowledge articles that cover topics in
447:
twice now, though have tried leaving a note in the edit summary. Hopefully
4237:
we should also create an up-to-date list of the really active contributors
725:
Blocked as sockpuppet - same articles, same material and same breaches of
169:. To post it on your user page, paste {{User WikiProject Nephrology}} .
3935:
Can anyone who has access look at the journal study cited in the Table I
2933:
Generally, links to a physician's private practice would seem to violate
2573:
2528:
I tried, but haven't gotten straight answers sufficient to sort it out.
1202:
1117:
Talk:Ringworm#Total rewrite required and restructure of Clinical Mycology
1089:
1074:
1065:
935:
and (2) that "the case study" being singular, fails to meet criteria for
3557:. I wouldn't use them. At least they're better than the Merck Manual.
4408:
4404:
4400:
4388:
4355:
4347:
3916:
is giving me a headache so I'm not sure how much time I'll spend there.
3913:
3860:
3734:
3395:
removing, AT THE VERY LEAST, please add a citation needed tag. Look at
2678:
What can be done with this? It reads as if it's an actual diagnosis.
1134:
714:). I haven't acted since I'm directly involved in the editing dispute.
377:
have reverted these, but details now been restored. As I try to follow
2510:
I would also wish for other editors to take part in the discussion at
2277:, but in the present form and on its own this article is meaningless.
358:
Akathisia as cause low compliance for exceptionally toxic neuroleptics
4072:
2339:
2332:
1704:
1644:
1160:
4228:
Medicine collaboration of the fortnight (1st and 15th of each month)
1228:
3781:
2844:
2039:
bothered me). I was afraid someone would bring it up eventually...
1541:
I didn't know you could do searches like that...a handy resource.
395:(Initial issues raised by Dr CareBear and my reply on my talk page
2399:
2017:
1912:
Well, I agree too, also about the "guilty until proven innocent",
1695:
I don't know that the era's over quite yet - there's still a huge
1227:
I look forward to the discussion. My thoughts on this arose from
1085:
385:
is maintained by not allowing this to become a personal edit war.
310:
links, but left a few, which, I think, are in compliance with the
4463:
Knowledge:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis
253:
FungalGuide links - useful, helpful, or poor external link spamĀ ?
3219:
2035:
Arghāthe state of that article has long bothered me (and I mean
2021:
1913:
4189:
Stick to "pure" medical topics, e.g. the current collaboration
2937:
by being commercial, adding little of encyclopedic value, etc.
2403:
235:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2
4488:
4119:
MCOTW now turns around twice a month: on the 1st and the 15th.
2917:
1978:
The opinion of project members would be most welcome. Cheers,
1313:
25:
4143:) and myself will find important articles that need improving
4126:
objective (we cannot aspire to producing an FA every 2 weeks)
3759:
regardless of whether the information is considered reliable.
1100:
as a specific field of medicine and then disease articles of
3075:
for some background. I doubt the Mayo Clinic is much better.
2843:
2213:
262:
3006:
Here's a list of articles from which emedtv.com is linked:
581:- never done this before so keep an eye on things.cheers,
4407:
article is technically sound. If anybody wants to review
3078:
What is a physician doing using a website as a reference?
2899:
1921:
article. I'll start trying to dig up some useful sources.
1284:
provided most of the important structure for the article.
1020:
was re-written. Needs help with referencing... Thanks....
3440:
target audience (and WedMD of course now owns eMedicine)
2816:
bounced, but there's a pretty militant trannie fan club.
261:
has added links to several fungal medication articles to
1515:
being weighed carefully by an experienced practicioner.
3488:
3396:
3367:
3178:
3173:
3168:
3007:
2745:
1518:
473:
420:
417:
4391:
article to address my above-mentioned concern. So as
4304:
Please help making some noise about the improvements.
2912:
I've deleted the practice website of plastic surgeon,
1181:
The above (in WP:MEDRS) should be further qualified.
2160:
a number of times, I was concerned that creating the
3859:
To speak with Saddam Hussein, I have come to regard
2971:
that it is supported by professional organisations.
1959:
in their watchlists. There are two medicine-related
1655:
requested. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks,
1449:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources
1096:
article for the overall field (we do after all have
897:, a few extra pairs of eyes may want to watch itĀ :)
893:), but since it is now featured right on the top of
3875:with the help of an extremely detailed review from
2184:
WikiProject Gastroenterology nominated for deletion
4327:I'm having a discussion as to whether the type of
2750:Talk:Postherpetic neuralgia#Copyvio from eMedicine
2071:Cultural and controversy issues of benzodiazepines
2016:killers"?!!?!?!? How notable. Does the article on
1863:- it is not some "jfdwolff motto", have a look at
995:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Qumsieh's syndrome
475:. Finally, this user has been creating forks to
369:as the first mentioned side effect to majority of
4428:There are substantial issues being introduced at
4399:and "went for it." I substantially expanded the
2698:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome
2398:I think this would be an appropriate project for
2098:I propose we move medical test to diagnostic test
2106:and finding it a red link because someone wrote
754:I am having a somewhat circular discussion with
1212:Primary sources should be the key references--
1163:references, MEDRS implicitly discourages them.
1043:is your friend. I keep the ones I use most on
125:. We are trying to reach consensus on the page
814:There is ongoing discussion on the talk page.
3680:is neither an official guideline nor policy.
3322:No, that's not the position. My position on
3313:The position is that they have no place here.
2363:
1060:Ringworm and restructure of Clinical Mycology
8:
4042:Talk:Asperger syndrome#SG multiple responses
2152:I did a bit more digging, and it looks like
2059:Yeah it certainly does have a gloomy tone!
1859:. 129.31 signing talk pages is policy as is
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine
4181:Sounds great. So tomorrow we will start on
3641:- you can see the URL is a fine example of
2853:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive
1855:Agree inappropriate link, as elaborated at
1092:. Is this sufficient, or should there be a
117:Food and Drug Administration Criticism page
2748:? (article's discussion thread on this is
2254:I've never heard this term used before. --
2209:
1133:article, it may make more sense to expand
4368:I agree it could stand to be improved...
277:). Are these links appropriate under our
149:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/MastCell
2439:out of context to advance a fringe POV?
1773:I have now reverted the same spammer on
4411:and make any edits, please go ahead.
4122:GA status rather than FA should be the
4010:has now been (rightfully) submitted to
3071:and appear slightly more credible? See
2746:the relevant sections that I had to cut
2316:Shameless plug: I've created a stub on
843:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Microbiology
4507:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2893:CAST YOUR VOTE for next week's article
2736:I've sadly just had to remove most of
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3280:, since it was recently rewritten at
2552:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Lyrl
2233:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
1949:Apparently, few project members have
1321:This might discourage the inevitable
1231:-- and are related to changes to the
468:Similar commentary has been added to
7:
4248:Should we rename the MCOTW to MCOTF?
3882:We have a very positive note on the
1562:deleting all links from namespaces--
560:checkuser time methinks (?)cheers,
531:Things are rapidly degenerating, as
183:
167:Template:User WikiProject Nephrology
4063:MCOTW - resuscitating an old friend
3733:unnecessary. For example, look at
3620:based on stronger material. I hope
2364:Let's make linking to PubMed easier
2342:is getting very little feedback at
1703:out there - but getting the parent
3603:this article on the ketogenic diet
2766:Not exactly music for the masses.
2225:Medicine Collaboration of the Week
2222:Thank you for your support of the
1995:Am I the only one who thinks that
194:This user is a participant in the
143:Just to let project members know,
24:
4240:Journal Service (fantastic idea!)
1115:See discussion thread started at
4492:
4455:Therapies for multiple sclerosis
4129:If insufficient votes are cast,
2779:proposed Surgeons' bio deletions
1159:; MEDMOS encourages the use of
976:reliable evidence that it exists
187:
29:
2882:Last week's collaboration was:
1744:2000 Simpsonwood CDC Conference
408:I've reverted similar edits to
3114:re Why still... not any more.
2458:Already implemented, just set
1968:Timeline of tuberous sclerosis
1317:something along the lines of,
1039:For formatting of references,
1:
4314:15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
4294:Meningitis is the new collab.
4285:10:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
4266:07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
4057:17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
3890:book review, by the way. See
2865:of the day for 29 Sep 2024 -
2102:I am tired of using the term
700:Well, he's still at it - see
477:Haloperidol - Adverse Effects
99:Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome
97:I've made a little speech on
4416:03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2778:
2297:articles cited by Jfdwolff.
2189:WikiProject Gastroenterology
1472:An AFD is taking place over
1148:PubMed vs. secondary sources
676:Template:Sockpuppeteerproven
344:There was some concern that
123:Food and Drug Administration
4449:13:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
4379:15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
4363:09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
4342:22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
4217:18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
4205:17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
4176:22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
4163:19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
4032:17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
4016:Asperger_syndrome#Diagnosis
4002:13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
3989:18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3971:17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3952:05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3925:17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3905:12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3841:12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
3811:04:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
3716:20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3688:20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3659:19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3632:16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3587:13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3570:05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3545:04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3519:00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
3498:20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3482:18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3445:17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3435:15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3406:15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3382:14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3362:13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3343:13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3318:13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3298:13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3271:12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3247:04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3209:04:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3191:03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3136:01:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
3123:Good. Next, Mayo clinic.
3119:23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3107:22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3089:22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3061:22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3030:18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3016:17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
3001:16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
2960:16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2947:gender reassignment surgery
2928:14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
2833:03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2821:03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2773:03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
2650:Lung cancer needs input at
4566:
4329:total parenteral nutrition
4244:My questions/suggestions:
3931:Journal copyright question
3871:I'm planning some work on
3464:in an encyclopedic fashion
2757:23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2724:23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2707:23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2691:22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2667:21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2633:01:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
2613:18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2600:15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2568:Propofol infusion syndrome
2563:19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
2541:20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
2523:18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
2505:17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
2485:23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2467:01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2446:05:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
2427:21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2411:20:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2359:17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
2327:22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
2304:22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
2288:21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
2264:21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
346:Yeast expression platforms
340:Yeast expression platforms
317:I appreciate your advice.
112:12:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
4325:Talk:Short bowel syndrome
4115:I propose the following:
2974:Articles in question are
2966:Emedtv, a tertiary source
2869:User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage
2400:Wikimedia's participation
2318:donor lymphocyte infusion
2312:Donor lymphocyte infusion
2200:22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
2174:08:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
2162:Category:Diagnostic tests
2148:05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
2138:22:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
2119:19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
2086:13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2064:11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2055:01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2031:23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
2010:22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
1986:22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1928:02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1892:00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1832:16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1812:16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1798:12:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1761:16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1734:12:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1714:19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1687:19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1670:19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
1474:Starchild Abraham Cherrix
1466:Starchild Abraham Cherrix
1460:18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
1442:14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
1396:19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1381:18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1349:17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1332:15:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1303:15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1289:07:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1273:06:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1249:06:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
1155:seems to be at odds with
1142:08:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1129:Rather than create a new
1124:22:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
1052:14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
1035:10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
1025:14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
1013:Referencing expert needed
1007:22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
985:20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
966:18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
944:18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
825:10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
451:will reply here.cheers,
263:http://www.fungalguide.ca
139:Project member up for RfA
1961:featured list candidates
1945:Featured List Candidates
1635:13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1612:01:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1600:13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1581:13:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1569:13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1555:13:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1546:11:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1536:10:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1504:18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1484:17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
1199:|Canadian Health Network
918:
913:21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
874:16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
806:11:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
792:02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
779:01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
734:02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
721:23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
688:23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
666:22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
654:21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
626:17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
615:13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
594:11:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
573:09:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
556:03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
523:16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
502:16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
484:14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
464:03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
439:03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
404:02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
390:02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
353:12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
334:14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
324:23:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
300:22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
275:Encyclopaedia Brittanica
248:22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
225:20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
179:23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
93:Chronic fatigue syndrome
2404:Google's Summer of Code
1973:List of polio survivors
1777:numerous times. I have
1403:I have been looking at
1106:Ischaemic heart disease
267:Contributions/Romanbond
156:16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
134:00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
3855:Mother of all eyesores
2848:
2738:Postherpetic neuralgia
2732:Postherpetic neuralgia
2460:<noquack = yes: -->
2218:
2126:Category:Medical tests
1752:autistic enterocolitis
1102:Coronary heart disease
858:if anyone has access.
752:Talk:Disease mongering
4505:of past discussions.
2861:(random unreferenced
2847:
2250:a legitimate article?
2217:
1843:comment was added by
1110:myocardial infarction
833:Bartonella rochalimae
292:be more appropriateĀ ?
197:Nephrology task force
42:of past discussions.
4395:suggested, IĀ became
4319:Short bowel syndrome
4290:Ok! What I've done:
4223:So a little summary:
4191:transcription factor
4185:? Some suggestions:
4044:would be welcomed.
3966:disorders" here? --
3937:built in my sandbox,
3892:Talk:Coeliac disease
2839:Heart disease on AID
1861:WP:Assume good faith
1447:Discussion moved to
1421:scientific consensus
127:Criticism of the FDA
4430:Vaccine controversy
4256:What do you think?
2389:PubMed's eutilities
2384:or {{pmid=9718051}}
2238:Hope you can helpā¦
2079:Talk:Benzodiazepine
1873:WP:Reliable sources
1489:I commented at the
640:Checkuser confirmed
577:I've reported this
4424:Vaccine conroversy
4077:multiple sclerosis
4067:A few months ago,
2896:
2849:
2796:Douglas Ousterhout
2437:Medical Hypotheses
2219:
2154:diagnostic program
1857:Talk:Blood culture
1510:Wrongdiagnosis.com
925:Qumsieh's syndrome
919:Qumsieh's syndrome
841:Cross-posted from
416:. My rationale in
4553:
4552:
4517:
4516:
4511:current talk page
4486:
4472:comment added by
4339:
4282:
4274:Meningitis time!
4160:
4083:were improved to
4038:Asperger syndrome
4008:Asperger syndrome
3902:
3873:pancreatic cancer
3714:
3656:
3555:Tourette syndrome
3516:
3479:
3433:
3359:
3268:
3086:
3039:editoral process.
2998:
2880:
2875:
2711:Works for meĀ :-)
2673:Einstein syndrome
2631:
2598:
2424:
2285:
2275:pleural effusions
2242:
2241:
2112:Talk:Medical test
2053:
2007:
1852:
1830:
1795:
1731:
1684:
1632:
1533:
1429:original research
1281:Verbascum thapsus
1247:
1233:McClintock effect
1214:secondary sources
1205:and experimental
1166:WP:MEDRS states:
1131:Clinical mycology
1094:Clinical mycology
1004:
964:
931:that one can yet
911:
872:
822:
776:
746:Disease mongering
549:for Dr CareBear.
533:DopaminericSystem
521:
437:
312:WP:External links
279:WP:External links
245:
222:
208:Category:Medicine
203:
202:
109:
90:
89:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
4557:
4544:
4519:
4518:
4496:
4495:
4489:
4485:
4466:
4441:
4337:
4280:
4214:
4158:
4092:KnowledgeĀ Seeker
4049:
4024:
3997:Looks good to me
3981:
3944:
3900:
3704:
3654:
3562:
3514:
3477:
3423:
3374:
3357:
3335:
3290:
3266:
3239:
3201:
3128:
3099:
3084:
2996:
2895:
2889:
2866:
2716:
2696:How about this:
2683:
2659:
2621:
2588:
2533:
2461:
2422:
2351:
2283:
2210:
2043:
2005:
1958:
1952:
1838:
1820:
1793:
1786:
1780:
1729:
1682:
1630:
1531:
1439:
1239:
1071:Tinea versicolor
1002:
954:
901:
862:
820:
774:
598:Article such as
511:
449:User:Dr CareBear
427:
363:User:Dr CareBear
243:
220:
191:
184:
175:
107:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4565:
4564:
4560:
4559:
4558:
4556:
4555:
4554:
4540:
4493:
4467:
4458:
4439:
4426:
4352:
4321:
4312:
4264:
4212:
4150:journal service
4081:prostate cancer
4065:
4047:
4022:
3979:
3942:
3933:
3884:coeliac disease
3857:
3778:reliable source
3617:reliable source
3599:reliable source
3560:
3372:
3333:
3288:
3276:In the case of
3237:
3199:
3126:
3097:
2968:
2951:plastic surgery
2902:
2897:
2891:
2881:
2841:
2781:
2734:
2714:
2681:
2676:
2657:
2648:
2570:
2548:
2531:
2497:
2459:
2366:
2349:
2337:
2314:
2252:
2243:
2207:
2186:
2104:diagnostic test
2100:
1993:
1956:
1950:
1947:
1839:āThe preceding
1784:
1778:
1771:
1642:
1512:
1470:
1437:
1229:this discussion
1195:Medlineplus.org
1183:Primary sources
1177:In my opinion:
1150:
1062:
1015:
921:
837:
748:
360:
342:
255:
232:
211:
204:
173:
163:
141:
119:
95:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4563:
4561:
4551:
4550:
4545:
4538:
4533:
4528:
4525:
4515:
4514:
4497:
4457:
4452:
4425:
4422:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4418:
4382:
4381:
4351:
4345:
4320:
4317:
4308:
4299:
4298:
4295:
4288:
4287:
4272:
4260:
4254:
4253:
4249:
4242:
4241:
4238:
4235:
4232:
4229:
4220:
4219:
4198:
4197:
4194:
4179:
4178:
4145:
4144:
4127:
4120:
4106:par excellence
4064:
4061:
4060:
4059:
4005:
4004:
3994:
3993:
3992:
3991:
3932:
3929:
3928:
3927:
3856:
3853:
3852:
3851:
3850:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3791:
3790:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3767:
3766:
3765:
3764:
3763:
3762:
3761:
3760:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3742:
3741:
3740:
3739:
3738:
3723:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3719:
3718:
3646:
3607:emedtv version
3594:
3593:
3592:
3591:
3590:
3589:
3575:
3574:
3573:
3572:
3548:
3547:
3536:
3535:
3530:
3529:
3523:
3501:
3500:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3453:
3452:
3451:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3447:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3366:Thanks, JFW:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3301:
3300:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3212:
3211:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3145:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3139:
3138:
3092:
3091:
3076:
3041:
3040:
3035:
3034:
3033:
3032:
3019:
3018:
2988:Talk:Arthritis
2967:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2901:
2898:
2890:
2879:
2859:Marcos Michael
2842:
2840:
2837:
2836:
2835:
2804:Randal Haworth
2780:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2733:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2675:
2670:
2647:
2642:
2640:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2569:
2566:
2547:
2544:
2526:
2525:
2496:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2430:
2429:
2396:
2395:
2392:
2385:
2381:
2365:
2362:
2336:
2330:
2313:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2291:
2290:
2251:
2244:
2240:
2239:
2237:
2229:
2220:
2208:
2206:
2203:
2185:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2158:Category:Drugs
2099:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2075:Benzodiazepine
1997:benzodiazepine
1992:
1991:Benzodiazepine
1989:
1976:
1975:
1970:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1770:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1737:
1736:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1690:
1689:
1641:
1638:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1557:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1469:
1468:subject of AFD
1463:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1384:
1383:
1370:
1367:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1306:
1305:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1275:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1210:
1175:
1174:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
990:
989:
988:
987:
969:
968:
923:A new article
920:
917:
916:
915:
848:
847:
836:
829:
828:
827:
811:
810:
809:
808:
795:
794:
747:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
693:
692:
691:
690:
669:
668:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
575:
526:
525:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
445:chlorpromazine
443:I've reverted
414:chlorpromazine
359:
356:
341:
338:
337:
336:
307:
305:
303:
302:
293:
286:
282:
259:User:Romanbond
254:
251:
237:- please vote
231:
228:
210:
205:
201:
200:
192:
182:
177:
162:
159:
140:
137:
118:
115:
94:
91:
88:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4562:
4549:
4546:
4543:
4539:
4537:
4534:
4532:
4529:
4526:
4524:
4521:
4520:
4512:
4508:
4504:
4503:
4498:
4491:
4490:
4487:
4483:
4479:
4475:
4471:
4464:
4456:
4453:
4451:
4450:
4446:
4442:
4435:
4431:
4423:
4417:
4414:
4410:
4406:
4402:
4398:
4394:
4390:
4386:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4380:
4377:
4376:
4371:
4367:
4366:
4365:
4364:
4361:
4357:
4349:
4346:
4344:
4343:
4340:
4334:
4330:
4326:
4318:
4316:
4315:
4311:
4307:
4302:
4296:
4293:
4292:
4291:
4286:
4283:
4277:
4273:
4270:
4269:
4268:
4267:
4263:
4259:
4250:
4247:
4246:
4245:
4239:
4236:
4233:
4230:
4227:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4218:
4215:
4209:
4208:
4207:
4206:
4203:
4195:
4192:
4188:
4187:
4186:
4184:
4177:
4174:
4173:
4167:
4166:
4165:
4164:
4161:
4155:
4151:
4142:
4139:
4136:
4132:
4128:
4125:
4121:
4118:
4117:
4116:
4113:
4111:
4107:
4103:
4100:
4097:
4093:
4088:
4086:
4082:
4078:
4074:
4070:
4062:
4058:
4054:
4050:
4043:
4039:
4036:
4035:
4034:
4033:
4029:
4025:
4017:
4013:
4009:
4003:
4000:
3996:
3995:
3990:
3986:
3982:
3974:
3973:
3972:
3969:
3965:
3960:
3956:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3949:
3945:
3938:
3930:
3926:
3923:
3922:
3917:
3915:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3906:
3903:
3897:
3894:for details.
3893:
3889:
3886:article in a
3885:
3880:
3878:
3874:
3869:
3866:
3862:
3854:
3842:
3839:
3834:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3827:
3826:
3825:
3824:
3823:
3822:
3821:
3812:
3809:
3804:
3799:
3798:
3797:
3796:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3782:
3779:
3775:
3774:
3773:
3772:
3771:
3770:
3769:
3768:
3757:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3748:
3747:
3746:
3736:
3731:
3730:
3729:
3728:
3727:
3726:
3725:
3724:
3717:
3712:
3708:
3703:
3702:Fvasconcellos
3699:
3695:
3691:
3690:
3689:
3686:
3683:
3679:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3657:
3651:
3647:
3644:
3640:
3636:
3635:
3634:
3633:
3630:
3627:
3623:
3618:
3615:
3610:
3608:
3604:
3600:
3588:
3585:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3577:
3576:
3571:
3567:
3563:
3556:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3549:
3546:
3543:
3538:
3537:
3532:
3531:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3521:
3520:
3517:
3511:
3507:
3506:heart failure
3499:
3496:
3494:
3490:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3480:
3474:
3468:
3465:
3460:
3446:
3443:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3431:
3427:
3422:
3421:Fvasconcellos
3418:
3413:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3404:
3402:
3398:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3389:
3388:
3383:
3379:
3375:
3369:
3365:
3364:
3363:
3360:
3354:
3350:
3349:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3329:
3325:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3316:
3312:
3308:
3303:
3302:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3269:
3263:
3259:
3248:
3244:
3240:
3233:
3232:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3221:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3210:
3206:
3202:
3195:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3189:
3184:
3181:
3180:
3176:
3175:
3171:
3170:
3166:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3137:
3133:
3129:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3117:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3090:
3087:
3081:
3077:
3074:
3070:
3069:those sources
3065:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3059:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3037:
3036:
3031:
3028:
3023:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3017:
3014:
3013:
3008:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2999:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2977:
2972:
2965:
2961:
2958:
2957:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2926:
2921:
2918:
2915:
2910:
2908:
2894:
2887:
2886:
2877:
2874:
2870:
2864:
2860:
2855:
2854:
2846:
2838:
2834:
2831:
2830:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2819:
2815:
2810:
2809:
2805:
2801:
2800:Wallace Chang
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2774:
2771:
2770:
2765:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2755:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2731:
2725:
2721:
2717:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2705:
2704:
2699:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2674:
2671:
2669:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2653:
2646:
2643:
2641:
2634:
2629:
2625:
2620:
2619:Fvasconcellos
2616:
2615:
2614:
2611:
2610:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2596:
2592:
2587:
2586:Fvasconcellos
2583:
2580:
2575:
2567:
2565:
2564:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2545:
2543:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2524:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2503:
2495:
2492:
2486:
2483:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2468:
2465:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2447:
2444:
2443:
2438:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2393:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2375:
2370:
2361:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2345:
2341:
2334:
2331:
2329:
2328:
2325:
2324:
2319:
2311:
2305:
2302:
2301:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2289:
2286:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2269:It occurs in
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2249:
2245:
2236:was selected.
2235:
2234:
2227:
2226:
2221:
2216:
2212:
2211:
2204:
2202:
2201:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2183:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2146:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2097:
2087:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2062:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2051:
2047:
2042:
2041:Fvasconcellos
2038:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2029:
2028:
2023:
2019:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2008:
2002:
1998:
1990:
1988:
1987:
1984:
1981:
1974:
1971:
1969:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1962:
1955:
1954:MCOTWannounce
1944:
1942:
1929:
1926:
1925:
1920:
1919:blood culture
1915:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1893:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1850:
1846:
1845:129.31.19.204
1842:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1818:Fvasconcellos
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1805:blood culture
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1796:
1790:
1783:
1776:
1775:blood culture
1769:Blood culture
1768:
1762:
1759:
1758:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1735:
1732:
1726:
1721:
1720:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1697:walled garden
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1685:
1679:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1661:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1639:
1637:
1636:
1633:
1627:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1534:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1371:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1329:
1324:
1323:idiosyncratic
1320:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1059:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1018:Corneal ulcer
1012:
1008:
1005:
999:
996:
993:It's on AFD:
992:
991:
986:
983:
982:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
967:
962:
958:
953:
952:Fvasconcellos
948:
947:
946:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
914:
909:
905:
900:
899:Fvasconcellos
896:
892:
889:
886:
882:
878:
877:
876:
875:
870:
866:
861:
860:Fvasconcellos
857:
855:
846:
844:
839:
838:
835:
834:
830:
826:
823:
817:
813:
812:
807:
804:
799:
798:
797:
796:
793:
790:
789:
783:
782:
781:
780:
777:
771:
767:
764:
761:
757:
753:
745:
735:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
719:
718:
713:
710:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
689:
686:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
670:
667:
664:
663:
658:
657:
656:
655:
652:
651:
646:
641:
627:
624:
623:
618:
617:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
600:phenothiazine
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
574:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
554:
553:
548:
544:
541:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
519:
515:
510:
509:Fvasconcellos
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
499:
485:
482:
478:
474:
471:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
435:
431:
426:
425:Fvasconcellos
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
379:1 Revert Rule
376:
375:User:Casliber
372:
371:phenothiazine
368:
364:
357:
355:
354:
351:
347:
339:
335:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
315:
313:
306:
301:
298:
294:
291:
287:
283:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
268:
264:
260:
252:
250:
249:
246:
240:
236:
229:
227:
226:
223:
217:
209:
206:
199:
198:
193:
190:
186:
185:
181:
180:
176:
170:
168:
160:
158:
157:
154:
150:
146:
138:
136:
135:
132:
128:
124:
116:
114:
113:
110:
104:
100:
92:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4541:
4506:
4500:
4468:ā Preceding
4459:
4427:
4373:
4353:
4322:
4303:
4300:
4289:
4255:
4243:
4222:
4221:
4199:
4180:
4170:
4149:
4146:
4137:
4123:
4114:
4105:
4104:) (Mr MCOTW
4098:
4089:
4066:
4006:
3963:
3958:
3934:
3919:
3912:
3887:
3881:
3879:last month.
3876:
3870:
3858:
3700:in my book.
3613:
3611:
3595:
3522:
3502:
3469:
3463:
3461:
3457:
3416:
3324:Tuberculosis
3278:Tuberculosis
3255:
3185:
3182:
3177:
3172:
3167:
3164:
3144:
3093:
3068:
3054:
3050:
3046:
3042:
3010:
2984:atorvastatin
2980:hypertension
2973:
2969:
2954:
2938:
2922:
2914:Toby Meltzer
2911:
2903:
2883:
2873:WP:RANDUNREF
2867:provided by
2857:
2851:
2850:The current
2827:
2814:toby meltzer
2811:
2788:George Bitar
2786:
2782:
2767:
2763:
2735:
2701:
2677:
2649:
2639:
2607:
2571:
2550:Heads up re
2549:
2527:
2498:
2440:
2436:
2397:
2371:
2367:
2338:
2321:
2315:
2298:
2271:pneumothorax
2253:
2231:
2223:
2187:
2108:medical test
2101:
2036:
2025:
1994:
1977:
1963:at present:
1948:
1940:
1922:
1772:
1755:
1708:
1643:
1622:
1606:
1591:
1575:
1564:
1559:
1522:
1517:
1513:
1498:
1471:
1446:
1445:
1402:
1390:
1341:
1337:
1326:
1318:
1279:
1265:
1226:
1187:Merck Manual
1176:
1170:
1165:
1151:
1114:
1083:
1063:
1045:my user page
1016:
979:
937:WP:Notablity
922:
894:
887:
853:
849:
840:
831:
786:
762:
749:
715:
708:
660:
648:
638:
620:
550:
539:
496:
494:
410:fluphenazine
361:
343:
319:
316:
314:guidelines.
308:
304:
285:being spamĀ ?
281:guidelinesĀ ?
256:
233:
212:
195:
164:
142:
120:
96:
78:
43:
37:
4499:This is an
4434:MMR vaccine
4413:H Padleckas
4360:H Padleckas
3838:David Ruben
3756:Source text
3442:David Ruben
3116:David Ruben
3027:David Ruben
2885:World War I
2856:article is
2808:Ziya Saylan
2792:Jon Perlman
2754:David Ruben
2652:peer review
2645:Lung cancer
2560:David Ruben
2516:Talk:Ataxia
2512:Talk:Ataxia
2494:Talk:Ataxia
2480:references.
2248:Heart shift
2083:David Ruben
1889:David Ruben
1883:as well as
1653:peer review
1605:blacklist.
1425:reliability
1336:"The us of
1121:David Ruben
941:David Ruben
895:In the News
731:David Ruben
685:David Ruben
604:flupentixol
470:haloperidol
401:David Ruben
387:David Ruben
297:David Ruben
290:antifungals
257:A new user
153:David Ruben
36:This is an
4548:ArchiveĀ 11
4542:ArchiveĀ 10
4183:meningitis
3614:adequately
3601:. Look at
3412:benazepril
2374:web mashup
2230:This week
1782:sprotected
1748:Mark Geier
1338:some types
1235:article.
1207:physiology
1098:Cardiology
1079:dermophyte
383:good faith
85:ArchiveĀ 11
79:ArchiveĀ 10
4536:ArchiveĀ 9
4531:ArchiveĀ 8
4523:ArchiveĀ 5
4370:go for it
4213:Countincr
3968:MarcoTolo
3698:WP:POINTy
3673:guideline
3489:this edit
3417:secondary
3397:this diff
2976:arthritis
2742:eMedicine
2464:MarcoTolo
2462:.... --
2408:Badgettrg
2145:alteripse
2116:alteripse
1869:WP:Verify
1809:MarcoTolo
1701:POV forks
1649:Eubulides
1578:alteripse
1565:Countincr
1525:sources?
1523:bona fide
1191:eMedicine
1157:WP:MEDMOS
1041:this page
881:Nishkid64
852:Relevant
608:akathisia
583:Cas Liber
562:Cas Liber
547:akathisia
453:Cas Liber
421:summaries
367:akathisia
350:Antonrojo
73:ArchiveĀ 9
68:ArchiveĀ 8
60:ArchiveĀ 5
4482:contribs
4474:Garrondo
4470:unsigned
4393:MastCell
4375:MastCell
4172:MastCell
4141:contribs
4102:contribs
4085:featured
4069:WP:MCOTW
3999:Droliver
3964:autistic
3921:MastCell
3833:WP:MEDRS
3808:Sailormd
3803:WP:MEDRS
3678:WP:MEDRS
3665:WP:MEDRS
3622:WP:MEDRS
3584:Sailormd
3542:Sailormd
3493:AndrewĀ c
3419:source)
3410:Re. the
3401:AndrewĀ c
3315:Sailormd
3311:WP:MEDRS
3307:WP:MEDRS
3258:WP:MEDRS
3188:Sailormd
3073:WP:MEDRS
3058:Sailormd
3012:MastCell
2956:MastCell
2925:Droliver
2829:MastCell
2818:Droliver
2806:, &
2769:MastCell
2703:MastCell
2617:Thanks!
2609:MastCell
2582:12904852
2574:propofol
2546:re a RfA
2502:Arcadian
2442:MastCell
2323:MastCell
2300:MastCell
2256:Uthbrian
2166:Uthbrian
2130:Uthbrian
2061:Andrew73
2027:MastCell
1924:MastCell
1841:unsigned
1757:MastCell
1710:MastCell
1651:, and a
1608:MastCell
1552:Arcadian
1543:Andrew73
1500:MastCell
1481:Andrew73
1434:Dozenist
1409:fluoride
1405:WP:MEDRS
1392:MastCell
1328:MastCell
1300:Droliver
1269:contribs
1259:Casliber
1220:sources.
1203:medicine
1153:WP:MEDRS
1139:Arcadian
1090:ringworm
1075:Mycology
1066:Ringworm
1064:Current
981:MastCell
891:contribs
788:MastCell
766:contribs
717:MastCell
712:contribs
662:MastCell
650:MastCell
622:MastCell
612:Andrew73
591:contribs
570:contribs
552:MastCell
543:contribs
498:MastCell
481:Andrew73
461:contribs
145:MastCell
4502:archive
4440:Georgia
4409:Surgery
4405:Surgery
4401:Surgery
4389:Surgery
4356:Surgery
4350:article
4348:Surgery
4124:primary
4090:Sadly,
4087:level.
4048:Georgia
4023:Georgia
3980:Georgia
3943:Georgia
3914:Allergy
3861:allergy
3735:bunions
3638:article
3561:Georgia
3373:Georgia
3334:Georgia
3289:Georgia
3238:Georgia
3200:Georgia
3127:Georgia
3098:Georgia
2939:However
2715:Georgia
2682:Georgia
2658:Georgia
2532:Georgia
2350:Georgia
1877:WP:Spam
1865:WP:Cite
1592:support
1560:Support
1417:medical
1413:amalgam
1366:editor.
1346:Circeus
1286:Circeus
1237:Nephron
1135:Mycosis
1032:Finavon
856:article
702:NetCafe
645:WP:AN/I
161:Userbox
131:Rustavo
39:archive
4306:NCurse
4258:NCurse
4131:NCurse
4073:asthma
4012:WP:FAR
3669:policy
3328:WP:ATT
3282:WP:FAR
2520:Nehwyn
2482:Dlodge
2340:Autism
2335:at FAC
2333:Autism
1881:WP:NOT
1879:, and
1750:, and
1705:autism
1645:Autism
1640:Autism
1595:think?
1495:WP:BLP
1491:WP:DRV
1161:PubMed
1112:etc)
1049:Ksheka
727:WP:AGF
680:WP:3RR
606:, and
365:added
265:- see
4438:Sandy
4252:need.
4046:Sandy
4021:Sandy
3978:Sandy
3959:et al
3941:Sandy
3865:MCOTW
3682:Colin
3626:Colin
3559:Sandy
3371:Sandy
3368:here.
3332:Sandy
3287:Sandy
3236:Sandy
3198:Sandy
3125:Sandy
3096:Sandy
2943:WP:EL
2935:WP:EL
2907:WP:EL
2713:Sandy
2680:Sandy
2656:Sandy
2530:Sandy
2348:Sandy
2205:MCOTW
2073:with
2018:knife
1980:Colin
1885:WP:EL
1807:. --
1664:Colin
1657:Colin
1597:petze
1476:here
1454:Colin
1375:Colin
1086:Tinea
1022:EyeMD
929:WP:RS
803:scuro
756:Scuro
418:these
331:Femto
16:<
4478:talk
4445:Talk
4432:and
4397:bold
4354:The
4338:T@lk
4310:work
4281:T@lk
4262:work
4159:T@lk
4135:talk
4096:talk
4079:and
4053:Talk
4028:Talk
3985:Talk
3948:Talk
3901:T@lk
3694:lead
3655:T@lk
3566:Talk
3515:T@lk
3478:T@lk
3378:Talk
3358:T@lk
3339:Talk
3294:Talk
3267:T@lk
3243:Talk
3205:Talk
3132:Talk
3103:Talk
3085:T@lk
2997:T@lk
2871:via
2720:Talk
2687:Talk
2663:Talk
2579:PMID
2556:Lyrl
2537:Talk
2423:T@lk
2355:Talk
2284:T@lk
2273:and
2260:talk
2195:. --
2193:here
2170:talk
2134:talk
2128:? --
2037:long
2022:rope
2006:T@lk
1914:ECHR
1849:talk
1794:T@lk
1730:T@lk
1683:T@lk
1631:T@lk
1532:T@lk
1519:This
1438:talk
1427:nor
1411:and
1263:talk
1137:. --
1003:T@lk
933:cite
885:talk
854:NEJM
821:T@lk
775:T@lk
760:talk
706:talk
587:talk
579:here
566:talk
537:talk
457:talk
412:and
321:R.B.
244:T@lk
221:T@lk
174:Gaff
108:T@lk
4436:.
4333:JFW
4323:On
4276:JFW
4154:JFW
3896:JFW
3888:Gut
3877:Gut
3671:or
3650:JFW
3643:SEO
3510:JFW
3473:JFW
3353:JFW
3262:JFW
3080:JFW
2992:JFW
2949:or
2863:BLP
2654:.
2418:JFW
2402:in
2346:.
2344:FAC
2279:JFW
2246:Is
2020:or
2001:JFW
1875:,
1789:JFW
1725:JFW
1699:of
1678:JFW
1626:JFW
1527:JFW
1452:--
1419:or
1314:DCA
998:JFW
816:JFW
770:JFW
750:On
589:|
568:|
459:|
239:JFW
230:AFD
216:JFW
103:JFW
4527:ā
4484:)
4480:ā¢
4465:.
4447:)
4372:.
4335:|
4278:|
4202:WS
4200:--
4156:|
4112:.
4110:FA
4075:,
4055:)
4030:)
3987:)
3950:)
3898:|
3652:|
3568:)
3512:|
3508:.
3475:|
3380:)
3355:|
3341:)
3296:)
3264:|
3245:)
3207:)
3134:)
3105:)
3082:|
3009:.
2994:|
2990:.
2982:,
2978:,
2953:.
2916:,
2878:.
2802:,
2798:,
2794:,
2790:,
2722:)
2700:?
2689:)
2665:)
2539:)
2500:--
2420:|
2376::
2357:)
2281:|
2262:)
2197:WS
2172:)
2136:)
2081:?
2003:|
1957:}}
1951:{{
1871:,
1867:,
1851:)
1791:|
1785:}}
1779:{{
1746:,
1727:|
1680:|
1672:)
1628:|
1590:I
1529:|
1271:)
1197:,
1193:,
1189:,
1108:,
1104:,
1000:|
818:|
801:--
772:|
647:.
602:,
585:|
564:|
455:|
423:.
399:)
241:|
218:|
151:.
105:|
64:ā
4513:.
4476:(
4443:(
4138:Ā·
4133:(
4099:Ā·
4094:(
4051:(
4026:(
3983:(
3946:(
3783:.
3713:)
3711:c
3709:Ā·
3707:t
3705:(
3684:Ā°
3645:.
3628:Ā°
3564:(
3432:)
3430:c
3428:Ā·
3426:t
3424:(
3376:(
3337:(
3292:(
3241:(
3203:(
3130:(
3101:(
2888:.
2876:)
2752:)
2718:(
2685:(
2661:(
2630:)
2628:c
2626:Ā·
2624:t
2622:(
2597:)
2595:c
2593:Ā·
2591:t
2589:(
2577:(
2535:(
2406:.
2353:(
2258:(
2228:.
2168:(
2132:(
2052:)
2050:c
2048:Ā·
2046:t
2044:(
1982:Ā°
1847:(
1829:)
1827:c
1825:Ā·
1823:t
1821:(
1666:Ā°
1659:Ā°
1456:Ā°
1377:Ā°
1266:Ā·
1261:(
1245:C
1243:|
1241:T
1209:.
963:)
961:c
959:Ā·
957:t
955:(
910:)
908:c
906:Ā·
904:t
902:(
888:Ā·
883:(
871:)
869:c
867:Ā·
865:t
863:(
845:.
763:Ā·
758:(
709:Ā·
704:(
540:Ā·
535:(
520:)
518:c
516:Ā·
514:t
512:(
436:)
434:c
432:Ā·
430:t
428:(
171:ā
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
