Talk:Canadian Consensus Criteria

Comment

I think it's pretty clear why this isn't used on a clinical level. Even a specialist would be pulling their hair out trying to go through all these symptoms. It isn't that I don't agree with this criteria but this is quite the diagnostic nightmare requiring great effort in both gathering of reported symptoms and tests and possibly requiring many specialists with someone dedicated to co-coordinating it all. Insurance companies don't like covering all of this especially those that need referrals which often require Primaries to request with formal paperwork and possibly rejected. Researchers probably are better at using this and those clinicians highly specialized in diagnosing ME/CFS but the average clinician won't get involved with this. Exclusions on a clinical level is ridiculous because as the IOM pointed out having an excluded disease and CFS is not only possible it is probably a given. Researchers at times need to follow an exclusionary disease but not always.--DxCFS (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2016 (PDT)

Reference style problems

Some references are not in the MEpedia style, for example the instruction "Read" should not be in a reference. Some references have no author or date etc. Chapters that are numbered look better as Chapter 6 rather than just 6. notjusttired (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Using et al

Is it worth setting the display-authors to limit to 5 or 6, and add et al. automatically? For instance in the (newly created) MEpedia:Commonly used citations, or in the Citation template (which does all references)? But this would de-link some authors from certain page. Thoughts? notjusttired (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Yeah because of the delinking issue, I favor not limiting the number of authors--the author links, particularly redlinks, help us figure out what pages really need to be created, because frequently linked authors who are still missing profiles will be listed higher at Special:WantedPages. I also think there's real value in having a complete picture of who works with who. As I go through papers, I'm finding many where the first seven or eight authors are folks I haven't heard of, and then the last author is a well-known name, meaning s/he likely didn't do a whole lot except lend his or her imprimatur--but it's very interesting to see which projects such a person wants to lend their credibility to. Retaining that info seems worth the clutter tradeoff, to me. Canele (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Referencing chapters

Is an alternative way of referencing many chapters or may pages from the same source needed, maybe a new template? Options seem to be using Template:Sfn or Template:Rp (not installed yet). I don't see anything in the Manual of style to say if we have a standard for this at the moment. I prefer using <ref name="ICC" />'''{{Rp|pages=13-19}}''' or {{Rp|at=Ch6}} since it displays in the article as [2]:13-19 for pages, or [2]:Ch6 (or whatever you choose for chapters). Thoughts? Tagging others to ask. User:JaimeS User:MEandCFS User:Canele User:Pyrrhus User:DxCFS User:Hip User:Brettz9 User:Kmdenmark notjusttired (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

This solution seems perfect and actually is something I had looked for and failed to find on WP! So thank you! It's much cleaner and more amenable to editor re-use than other options I'm aware of. Canele (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

Discussion moved to [[MEpedia_talk:Manual_of_style MOS talk page]]

---