Template talk:Infobox medical intervention

	Medicine Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I would like to see the CPT-4 codes added to the infobox, it would make it more applicable for subjects such as Colonoscopy, which is a procedure, rather than a disease (with a range of CPT-4 codes... does that make it impossible/more difficult to do?). Although I do edit many medical articles, I'd be way over my head with editing infoboxes, and have no desire to dive that deep into the Wiki functions.Carl 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, you could add additional information using the "{{{OtherCodes}}}" field. In the long term, I'd be very interested in improving this infobox, but I'd like to move slowly and see what (if any) sort of feedback we get first. One concern I have about using

MeSH links.) Hello, rest of the world, what do you think? --Arcadian 23:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd frankly never heard of this but seems like a reasonable addition to the template. If someone had access to the codes, it would be a way to make them freely available on the web! InvictaHOG 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ontario procedural billings are based on HCPSC level one, which I think is the same as CPT. I will ask my secretary if we have access to them online -- Samir धर्म 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, our schedule of benefits is a little antedated -- Samir धर्म 06:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of problems with putting CPT-4 codes in the articles. First off, it's my understanding that the AMA pretty aggressively enforces their copyright over the codes and the description mappings. While piecemeal might be OK, the sort of "List of..." article it'd surely lead to would be no-go. Secondly, the codes get updated yearly. While not everything changes, enough can change. Finally, it'd be a tough thing to map individual CPT-4 codes to individual Wikipedia articles;

epidural

for instance.

And, for the record, HCPCS level 1 = CPT-4. You can't get those codes freely because, again, AMA copyright. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 CPT4 should be there EncycloABC (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if WP qualifies under the umbrella of fair use; but, the parameter is already there. If the codes are not being added to articles, it's likely down to a lack of access to the codes. Little pob (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the standard procedure codes used in the UK, OPCS codes are marked copyright by the NHS Connecting for Health (Crown Copyright 2006) which does not have a policy of making its publications public domain, so I would be hesitant to add OPCS-4.3 (the current revision) codes. Claus Diff 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's notable enough to be included, but OPCS-4 is now available under an Open Government Licence.[1] Little pob (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few suggestion to improve:

• A link to medlineplus such as here for circumcision http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002998.htm
• Should we center the image like in the disease box for consistency? Unable to get the wiki markup to work.
• What about disease database such as here for circumcision [2]
• And emedicine as seen here [3]
• Should we make the image the same size as the disease box? Currently it is smaller.

--

I support all these changes. --Arcadian (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another change that would be nice is if the numbers lined up similar to the ones in the disease infobox rather than all the way to the left. Hard to see what they are to line up too.

What do you think about switching to the formatting style used here for

talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

How does the sandbox

test case look? I think this incorporates all your suggestions. Boghog (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice I love it. Wondering if the heading should be a slightly different color to distinguish it from the disease box? Other than that can we start using the new version?

talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The sandbox version of the intervention infobox in turn uses the {{infobox}} template which doesn't appear to support changes to the background color. I think we can sync the production with the sandbox version, although I am not 100% sure about the ICD9 link (to chrisendres.com) since I have not tested it. Do you know of any examples where the ICD9 link is used? Boghog (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ICD 9 does not appear to work. Here is the page for

talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize, but I misunderstood what you were suggesting concerning the header color. One can indeed set the "abovestyle = background-color" in the second line of the sandbox template code. I have changed it from "lightgrey" to to "lightblue" for now. Feel free to change this as you see fit. Also one can link to chrisendres.com: 64.0 Circumcision, but this link does not appear to be very informative. The only thing the link provides I suppose is some verification that the code is correct. I have no idea how important or useful these codes are. In addition to the ICD9 parameter, there is a another parameter called ICD9unlinked. Perhaps we should remove the ICD9 parameter and just use ICD9unlinked. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great I like the new color and moved it over to live. The link of the ICD 9 code just verifies it. Used for biling.

talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

In addition to confirmation, the live links of the codes permits navigation to related entries, which helps reveal structure to the reader. --Arcadian (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the disease infoboxes they automatically link out to the appropriate place in the ICD9/10 database. Tried to use the same could in this template but it does not appear to work. Not sure how to fix this...

Never mind figured it out. I needed to add the {{ICD9| xxx}}

talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The "en.wikipedia.org" site is a site *in* english, not a site *about* english. There is a long-standing tradition of the documentation of international classification in the English wikipedia. Although it isn't in english, I strongly recommend that we keep it. Our options for intervention codes are limited. This is the only one I've found that is (1) up-to-date, (2) freely available on the internet in a linkable form, and (3) actually currently used in a modern medical system. It is difficult enough to triangulate the clearest possible relationships using the coding we have available, and removing OPS-301 would make it even harder. --Arcadian (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even used? Intervention is not appropriate for all uses of this infobox. How about either making it an option or a parameter, if not just remove it all together? Apteva (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It is now an entirely optional parameter. Kaldari (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baring in mind this is the medical intervention infobox, and not the medical condition infobox, the WHO linked ICD-10 template that the example infobox currently calls upon does not contain ICD-10-PCS data. On coming accross the ICD10data.com linked ICD10PCS template, I tried to boldly change the template called on in the data1 field, but it effectively deleted the line instead (so self reverted). Could some one look at switching the templates if there is consensus? Little pob (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a newer version with human readable information. Switch from the old to the new will need to be gradual much like with {{infobox medical condition}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People have other ideas of what could be useful in such an infobox? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new ideas and the development. Just to note that surgical procedure is a nice example of medical intervention. Taking a pill is also formally though of as pharmaceutical intervention. So the scope of medical procedures and the term procedure is cleaner.EncycloABC (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hum yes "medical procedure" could be good aswell. Do you want to format this as a move request User:EncycloABC? Lets see if others have thoughts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to wrap my head around the old and new template and how it relates to classification. My side goal is to improve medical procedures coverage and have it linked to resources (e.g., MeSH, ICD10PCS, SNOMED CT). The new template seems to leave this to Medical resources which is good. The only remaining thing is to have it pre-populated from WD (on pages where no current resources is manuall (via WP) entered) EncycloABC (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reference range. (and have clear relationship to diagnostic infobox) EncycloABC (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have medium WP expertise. As a side project, I would like to get a list of all articles that use a given template. In this case Infobox medical intervention and Infobox medical intervention (new). Can someone point me how I can do that? It could be a SPARQL query or API solution. Mousing and point and click is less preferred. EncycloABC (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here. There's a "What links here" link in the left sidebar that shows all pages linking to a page; those marked as "(transclusion)" are the ones making use of the template and not merely linking to it. In this particular case, that's little enough to make API or the like unnecessary. If you want to go the API route,

WP:VPT may be the place to ask. Huon (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

how to use it

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_corpuscular_volume , I hope to show LOINC code and reference ranges from wikidata here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1358504 Infobox diagnosic seems to have it but I think diagnostic is type of 'medical intervention (new)'EncycloABC (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox diagnostic does not draw content from Wikidata. I'd be very careful about that functionality since taking Wikidata content in that way is controversial on Wikipedia. That said, to me it seems more useful, if such functionality is desired (and there's a consensus for having it), to add it to the diagnostic template and to give this one the ability to incorporate the latter as a sub-template. As an aside, I don't see why mean corpuscular volume should have a "medical intervention" template since it's not an intervention. Huon (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to update this new version of infobox (with suffix new) to also have (like the old version) display of linked IDs e.g., this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation shows linked icd10pcs code and mesh code but when migrated to the new, it looses it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloABC (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

correction to my post above. I guess it is now part of medical resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloABC (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so was able to achieve that on the page mentioned above. I almost feel like deleting the whole talk section now. EncycloABC (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the specialty is not picked up correctly from WD here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy_reversal EncycloABC (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can this template have multiple images (image1, image2...)?HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HovhannesKarapetyan not clear how to build that but happy to see it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HovhannesKarapetyan and Doc James:,

Yes! Just use Template:Multiple_image which I did more than anything as a proof of concept at [6]. Helen4780 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks, following the TFD these two templates have been merged. What parameter(s) should be removed from the "old" version of the template? Once that information is determined I can go through with my bot and clean out any existing uses of them to avoid future confusion, plus do a bit of standardising on some of the parameters with multiple variants. (please do not

Ideally the bot would add {{medical resources}} (placed per template documentation) and then move any listed external links and classification data to that. However, before that, some of the parameters will need adding to the med res template; the changes needed were sandboxed during the TfD. No reason to suspect they won't work but, for the sake of full disclosure, I haven't had chance to do any testcases. Little pob (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]