Misplaced Pages

Talk:Parkinson's disease: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:52, 30 March 2022 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,959 edits Merge← Previous edit Revision as of 23:32, 25 May 2022 edit undo172.58.75.64 (talk) →therapies: new sectionTag: review editNext edit →
Line 215: Line 215:
The cost section had mentioned about needing to update the costs of PD but precise calculations are difficult due to methodological issues in research. I have updated the section with findings from a recent study that examined the current economic burdens of PD in the US and future projections. The cost section had mentioned about needing to update the costs of PD but precise calculations are difficult due to methodological issues in research. I have updated the section with findings from a recent study that examined the current economic burdens of PD in the US and future projections.
] (]) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC) ] (]) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

== therapies ==

Needs to mention fava beans as a studied alternative medicine for mild Parkinson's.

Revision as of 23:32, 25 May 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parkinson's disease article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2.5 years 

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleParkinson's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 5, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
October 17, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDisability
WikiProject iconParkinson's disease is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
Template:WP1.0
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Parkinson's disease.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
          Other talk page banners
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Additional comments
See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 29 January 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbobet830. Peer reviewers: Gonzalezmabit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Update needed

This article is quite outdated. At minimum, current thinking on subtypes of PD should be incorporated, and issues raised on talk (above) have not been addressed.

  • Buhmann C, Kassubek J, Jost WH (June 2020). "Management of Pain in Parkinson's Disease". J Parkinsons Dis (Review). doi:10.3233/JPD-202069. PMID 32568113.
  • de Bie RM, Clarke CE, Espay AJ, Fox SH, Lang AE (May 2020). "Initiation of pharmacological therapy in Parkinson's disease: when, why, and how". Lancet Neurol (Review). 19 (5): 452–461. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30036-3. PMID 32171387.
  • SandyGeorgia  Fixed in this edit. |vauthors= of {{cite journal}} only allows the first two initial of the first/middle names. The original Vancouver style also is restricted to the first two letters but at some point, PubMed started to allow three characters. I now see that the citation filling tool is allowing three characters. I will change this to truncate to two characters to prevent this error in the future. Boghog (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Advances in Parkinson's research continue, but this article is static. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Can I restore this reference I cited the underlying trial as well as review - but this review provides a more comprehensive discussion the of trials and got removed at the same time. The trial about AAV-GAD is the only one of interest in terms of efficacy to secondary sources. The Nature reviews disease primer was published before these and wasn't up to date with respect to that trial which reported long term results in Science Tran. Medicine, and JCI insight after the primer was published. See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.07.018 PainProf (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@PainProf:, by all means, and my apologies ... cleaning up too fast, and I did not notice the review amid all the last first last first last first. One thing that would be very helpful is to use the Boghog citation filling tool for generating citations compatible with the article style. Just plug in a PMID, and you get a consistent citation so BogHog doesn't have to go through and repair. (I also add a parameter, type= Review to those I have checked to make sure they aren't primary sources. And I truncate at the same time six or more authors to three et al, so we don't have to edit around so much cruft inside ref tags.) My apologies again ... I was too quickly trying to catch up with you ... I am also discouraged at realizing how much still needs updating :( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries at all. PainProf (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional high quality sources

I think the most helpful review for the subtypes appears to be the JAMA one which takes a very balanced approach and discusses the controversy well. Stem cell review doesn't include the first in human trial (as that was published in May), though that is described in secondary sources already, its a weird case in that the original study is so notable being the second iPSC to make it to humans (done in a safe and responsible environment), we could cite this in Cell Stem Cell though I quite like citing the original paper in the NEJM too? PainProf (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Initiating treatment

Lancet Neurol doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30036-3

  • L-Dopa can be started even with mild symptoms
  • MAO-B inhibitors and dopamine agonists may be useful later

JFW | T@lk 10:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Listed in section above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Body scent

Facts707 you have twice added this WP:UNDUE text; please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Please explain how it fails WP:UNDUE. Research published in Nature Communications and ACS Central Science as noted in citations given. Anyway this information has been public knowledge for years. Facts707 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
If it has been public knowledge for year, then a broad secondary review of Parkinson’s will cover it. The amount of detail you have been adding is UNDUE, and please locate a WP:MEDDATE compliant secondary review that addresses the matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. WP:PRIMARY studies do not meet WP:MEDRS and should not be included in this article. We need secondary sources such as review articles for medical citations. My preliminary search is not finding review articles that cover this topic, although feel free to check yourself using different search terms. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Lots of old references here, contradicting MEDDATE

Many of the citations here are quite old (1988, 2000, 2005, etc.) articles, in apparent contradiction of WP:MEDDATE, particularly those on diagnosis and treatment. I tagged some of the worst sections after an editor pointed out the policy, but then another editor reverted. Am I misinterpreting something here? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Hello friend. I'm the one that reverted, sorry for any inconvenience that caused. From what I've seen in other medical articles, I'd say the review article requirement of MEDRS is pretty important, but the MEDDATE part is not applied as often and there is more flexibility there. If the MEDDATE issues really bother you, perhaps one tag for the entire article would be appropriate. One reason I reverted is that 7 MEDDATE cleanup tags were added. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    By the way, I apologize for quoting WP:POINT in my edit summary. From your great attitude in your responses, I misjudged you, and I apologize. I of course have no problem with the 7 tags being added back assuming there is consensus for it in this RFC. Happy editing my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the kind words - no problem, I can seen how that could be mistaken. I edit a lot of pages and am occasionally reverted for one reason or other - here twice, which is most unusual. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you starting an RFC when Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1 was just done? Have you read it? And the “Update needed” section at the top of the page, which lists newer secondary reviews that have not been incorporated?

RE your edits, tagbombing an article for MEDDATE is incorrect because in some cases a seminal finding or paper will be an old one. And it is unnecessary to tag every section when the entire article is outdated. Please be familiar with the article talk page and article milestones. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; because the article is dated does not make it OK to add other faulty content and sources.

If the tagbombing was not POINTY (as retracted by Novem Linguae) this RFC is; it asks no question that the community needs to resolve, and you could have asked the same question on talk without the RFC. Discussion is the first step in dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Reply. You bring up several points here which I will address in a list:
    • I added an RFC because a third editor reverted my UPDATE tags based on MEDDATE, which you had pointed out to me in your reversion of an edit I made mentioning an article on the scent of Parkinson's published in ACS and Nature journals. When I encounter differing opinions of other editors on a narrow topic I like to get more opinions.
    • You say "Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1 was just done? Have you read it?", but that was done in October 2020. I'm not a regular editor of this page and it is unlikely I would browse its archives to see if it is not being updated regularly.
    • You go on to say 'And the “Update needed” section at the top of the page, which lists newer secondary reviews that have not been incorporated?' But that edit was added by you after I had finished all my edits including the 'update' tags, so no, I didn't see it.
    • You say "RE your edits, tagbombing an article for MEDDATE is incorrect..." - Firstly "tagbombing" is a rather judgemental term in the circumstances.
    • You go on to say "...because in some cases a seminal finding or paper will be an old one. And it is unnecessary to tag every section when the entire article is outdated. Please be familiar with the article talk page and article milestones." - As I said to the editor above who reverted, which you might have seen when you posted below it: "Thanks for the info. I didn't want to tag the whole article because many sections appear well referenced with recent citations. Some are not though, particularly important ones such as Parkinson's disease#Diagnosis, Parkinson's disease#Prognosis and Parkinson's disease#Palliative care. If I were a Parkinson's patient or loved one of same, I think I would like to have an idea if the info I'm seeing is 15-20 years old. A bit frustating because I like to leave each article a little better than when I read it, but that's not happening here..."
    • You then say "Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; because the article is dated does not make it OK to add other faulty content and sources." - I read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which summarizes itself as These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid., essentially leaving it up to consensus.
    • You add "because the article is dated does not make it OK to add other faulty content and sources." - Again, I think that is rather judgemental in the circumstances, and you seem to imply that Nature and the American Chemical Society are faulty sources.
    • You then say "If the tagbombing was not POINTY (as retracted by Novem Linguae) this RFC is; it asks no question that the community needs to resolve, and you could have asked the same question on talk without the RFC." - As you note, the named editor had graciously and kindly retracted the WP:POINTY remark. However, you then applied it to the RFC, saying "you could have asked the same question on talk without the RFC". Yes, I could have, but as noted above when editors give apparently conflicting opinions on a topic, I like to ask for more input.
    • You finish with "Discussion is the first step in dispute resolution." - This implies that 1) there is a dispute; and 2) that an RFC on a talk page is not an appropriate for a discusion. Firstly I didn't know there was a dispute. You reverted an edit of mine trying to add a research topic of interest to the article, saying lay press (BBC) was inappropriate. I readded with Nature and ACS references, trimming the content substantially, and you reverted again mentioning MEDDATE and others. I hadn't heard of MEDDATE so I read it and realized it applied to a few Parkinson's disease sections. As I mentioned to the other editor, I make lots of edits and get reverted occasionlly so I'm used to it.
    • On browsing some of the edit history and talk, it appears you have been involved with the article for some time, e.g. with an editor asking you "SandyGeorgia Can I restore this reference I cited the underlying trial as well as review - but this review provides a more comprehensive discussion the of trials and got removed at the same time. The trial about AAV-GAD is the only one of interest in terms of efficacy to secondary sources. The Nature reviews disease primer was published before these and wasn't up to date with respect to that trial which reported long term results in Science Tran. Medicine, and JCI insight after the primer was published." - I don't have any history with the article so I don't know the clan editors or if there are certain protocols to be followed. I certainly understand if you feel your toes have been stepped on.
    • I'm hoping you just misinterpreted my intent and rushed a bit in reply. All good faith editors are valued by me. Facts707 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Robin Williams

There is a sentence saying "Another case is Robin Williams; he was diagnosed with Lewy body dementias after his death, and it most likely contributed to his suicide.", with a recent "citation needed" attached. Misplaced Pages's article on Robin Williams, has a well-referenced paragraph stating that the post-mortem indicated dementia with Lewy bodies, not Parkinson's. It seems therefore inappropriate to include him here. I will remove unless anybody has better information and can cite references. Jmchutchinson (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has provided a full, well-referenced account now, so issue resolved: thanks! Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences in mortality

I have reverted a series of primary sources for the second time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Alan Alda

Alan Alda went public with his diagnose a while back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drGv9fKfjrY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.117.2 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Smoking sources

Examples only, of just a few recent sources that meet WP:MEDRS:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The article needs to mention that even if smoking protects from PD nobody should smoke to prevent PD as smoking has it massively increase risk for multiple cancers ,cardiovascular diseases, etc. The takeaway of this article shouldn't be that people start smoking to prevent PD hence it is important to mention that any minor benefits smoking may have is heavily/overwhelmingly outweighed by the dangers.2409:4042:4D46:AD2:14BA:93B0:D5AD:D7F0 (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
See WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTADVICE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; if you can find a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says what you want to say, then we can talk about a policy-compliant edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Image

The cartoon depicted on this page does not reflect that Parkinson's can affect anyone at any stage. It would be fantastic if we could update this to make it more broadly representative of the Parkinson's community. We have some ideas from the community but further advice on how to go about this would be really appreciated and I know the Parkinson's community would be so supportive of this change.HelenM100 (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Which image is the "cartoon depicted on this page" that you refer to ? Getting images that comply with the licensing requirements explained at Misplaced Pages:Image use policy is difficult for most articles, not just medical. There are tutorials on images listed at Misplaced Pages:Images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for your reply. I was referring to the main image of the page. We have some suggestions that we believe would comply with the Image Use policy but would like to open up a discussion about what the most appropriate and up-to-date image would be.
The image we had in mind can be seen at this link
https://mbi.ufl.edu/2020/07/27/uf-neurologists-create-a-new-image-of-parkinson-disease/
It would be great to hear thoughts on whether this was the image to use. HelenM100 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
First, I'm having a hard time making any sense of that image. Maybe I'm dense, but the image is meaningless to me, and a lot for a reader to process in the lead of an article. Second, the journal article is not freely available and I cannot access its copyright information, but unless it is licensed in a way that we can use it, we can't. Did you read the image use links above? Colin could be helpful here, as he may be able to access the article, he may understand the image, and he can tell you whether it can be uploaded. If it can be uploaded, perhaps it can be used elsewhere in the article. Finally, who are you referring to with "we"? That is, have you read WP:COI? Considering you've provided a 2020 source from the creators of the concept, it would be helpful to know there is no COI here, and that this concept has broad acceptance, eg, in secondary reviews and sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
It is really hard to get good illustrations for Misplaced Pages as they need to be either in the public domain (as this old sketch probably is, though that appears to be somewhat uncertain) or freely licenced. Most images are copyright and all-rights-reserved. If we wanted to use this image (or elements of the image) then we'd need to get permission from the copyright holder, not only for it to be used on Misplaced Pages, but for them to give it a free licence so anyone can use it, even commercially. The copyright holder is probably Erica Rodriguez, though it depends on their contract with the two medical people who acted as consultants and commissioned it. Assuming the copyright holder agreed, we'd need to go through the permission-checking process on Commons, which can take a while.
I watched the video and they claimed searching for "Parkinson's disease image" produced universally the old sketch. They used Bing. I tried this on Bing and couldn't reproduce that. I got a wide variety of mostly modern illustrations. Same with Google. Perhaps in 2020, Bing's image search was worse? The problem with many images are that they contain lots of annotations which are unreadable unless the image is large on the screen. That's not appropriate for Misplaced Pages where we generally just have thumbnails (and imo a flaw with Misplaced Pages in 2022). It is really hard to illustrate a neurological condition. The images at epilepsy are just awful.
I think it would be difficult to use the modern image as one, with all the different subjects, because Misplaced Pages would make it too small and because it only really works well when accompanied by a good caption text, which would need to be long to cover all three. The JAMA paper describes the images, though in very medical language. I could see us potentially making use of this as three images, each with a caption describing the features on show, each showing a different degree of impairment and progression. I agree with the paper's comments that in 2022 we should move away from "elderly white man" as a stereotype image.
Perhaps the best step would be to ask at WT:MED if people think we could use (elements of) this image in the article. If it is felt to be useful, then it may be worth the next stage of asking about licensing. It may be that if the intention is to have a widely used image of Parkinson's then they are very happy to freely licence it, or even place it in the public domain. -- Colin° 20:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Colin. Before taking time from others at WT:MED, I'd prefer to first have the original poster indicate whether they can get copyright approval. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

University of Minnesota (unregistered) class editing

Updating the medicine section

The medicine section had mentioned about upcoming drugs that were still in research but in recent times, new drugs have come out for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. I have updated the section with the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldman09 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Updating research section

More recent research studies and clinical trials haven't been updated in the research section, especially in the usage of LRRK2 inhibitors for PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChonkPD (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Updating the cost section

The cost section had mentioned about needing to update the costs of PD but precise calculations are difficult due to methodological issues in research. I have updated the section with findings from a recent study that examined the current economic burdens of PD in the US and future projections. Yi Ni Toh (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

therapies

Needs to mention fava beans as a studied alternative medicine for mild Parkinson's.

Categories: