Wikipedia

Talk:Diabetes: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AEcb914 (talk | contribs)
36 edits
Update Exercise Physiology in Aging, ES4300-01 assignment details
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Health and Medicine|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Disability}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=Top|dyk=yes|MCOTW=prev|translation=yes|translation-imp=high|hemonc=yes|hemonc-imp=High}}▼
}}
{{Article history
| action1 = FAC
Line 15 ⟶ 18:
| action2oldid = 39649529
 
| currentstatus = FFAC}}{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
▲{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=Top|dyk=yes|MCOTW=prev|translation=yes|translation-imp=high}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Prone to spam}}
{{Old moves
Line 40 ⟶ 41:
__TOC__
 
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session24==
== Management of Diabetes through Dental Care ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/Introduction_to_Policy_Analysis_-_Summer_Session24_(Summer) | assignments = [[User:Faithogene|Faithogene]] | start_date = 2024-06-29 | end_date = 2024-08-16 }}
 
Hey guys, I would like to ask you to add and edit the sections "Complications" and "Management" with some core information about dental care for people with diabetes. For the first section, the International Diabetes Federation published in 2009 the guideline for "Oral health for people with diabetes" [https://www.idf.org/e-library/guidelines/83-oral-health-for-people-with-diabetes] that states "Maintenance of proper oral hygiene for good oral health is an accepted part of the normal recommendations for a healthy lifestyle. Poor oral hygiene is associated with gingivitis, which can progress to more severe infection and inflammation leading to periodontitis. Infectious disease is known to be more common in people with diabetes if blood glucose control is poor, and inflammation is known to be associated with a decrease in insulin sensitivity and thus potentially a worsening of blood glucose control" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29208508/ <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] . It also gives 5 recommendations to the clinical care of the people with diabetes:
 
1) Enquire annually as to whether each person with diabetes follows local recommendations for day-to-day dental care for the general population, and (where access permits) attends a dental professional regularly for oral health check-ups.
 
2) Enquire at least annually for symptoms of gum disease (including bleeding when brushing teeth, and gums which are swollen or red).
 
3) In those people not performing adequate day-to-day dental care, remind them that this is a normal part of diabetes self-management, and provide general advice as needed. Advise those not attending for regular dental check-ups on the importance of doing so (where access permits).
 
4) In those people with possible symptoms of gum disease, advise them to seek early attention from a dental health professional.
 
5) Education of people with diabetes should include explanation of the implications of diabetes, particularly poorly controlled diabetes, for oral health, especially gum disease.
 
It is important to inform to the Wiki community about the importance of visiting the Dentist to avoid the adverse effects and complications of a non-controlled diabetes. Currently, at OECD level, very few countries count with recommendations and public health policies aimed to improve the oral health of people with diabetes [https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2452-55882022000100065&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>], so this article could be a factor for change.
 
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Brianda (Wiki Ed)|Brianda (Wiki Ed)]] ([[User talk:Brianda (Wiki Ed)|talk]]) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)</span>
In addition to the second section, "Management", recently, a Cochrane Review synthesizing evidence from 30 trials (results from 2443 participants) showed that periodontitis treatment reduces blood sugar levels (measured by HbA1c) in diabetic patients on average by 0.43 percentage points (e.g. from 7.43% to 7%; 4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after receiving the treatment compared with no active treatment or usual care. A difference of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) was seen after 6 months (12 studies), and 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) at 12 months (one study) [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004714.pub4/full#CD004714-abs-0002 <nowiki>[4]</nowiki>]. This reinforce the necessity to include some information about the urgency of dental care in people with diabetes. I really like to read your thoughts and suggestions about this!! Thank you! [[User:Chamaquitoso|Chamaquitoso]] ([[User talk:Chamaquitoso|talk]]) 19:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 
== LeadThe lengthimage ==
 
@[[User:IndigoManedWolf|IndigoManedWolf]] even if the symbol is used by the organisation it is not a representative symbol of diabetes mellitus. It is not a common symbol as evidenced by it's lack of use elsewhere and is not illustrative of diabetes mellitus. See [[MOS:LEADIMAGE]]. I found the image to be surprising and not what I would expect when looking for diabetes mellitus. I've never once come across it when I've been researching/looking into human diabetes mellitus. [[User:Sacristy|Sacristy]] ([[User talk:Sacristy|talk]]) 02:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi all - Just having a look at this, I fear that the length of the lead section might be far too long and include too many in-line lists of symptoms, complications, treatments etc and could (and should) be surmised. As a number figure, it's currently seven paragraphs long and just over 550 words. As per [[WP:LEAD]], a well-written lead should be no more than four paragraphs. Any thoughts or objections to starting to clean and shorten it up? <span style="background-color: #CEF0FD; padding: 2px 4px; border-radius: 6px;">[[User:ItsPugle|'''Tim''']]</span> ([[User_talk:ItsPugle|Talk]]) 11:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 
:@[[User:Sacristy|Sacristy]] Now it is my turn to be surprised, because in my own experience I have seen it a fair bit, but I can understand it being a symbol with varying use. Symbols exist more often for the sake of advocacy as opposed to representation for medical purposes, so it makes sense that when doing a literature review on diabetes that you would not encounter it. That its use varies from region to region does not make it inappropriate to include as a lead image, but if there is a reasonable depiction of diabetes with a medical diagram, I think that would be preferable to the blue circle. I would not remove the circle without having a more representative image to add. [[User:IndigoManedWolf|IndigoManedWolf]] ([[User talk:IndigoManedWolf|talk]]) 02:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed, feel free to boldly take a crack at it! At a quick readthrough, I think the lead's introductions of type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes could also be shortened quite a bit. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 17:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::The only good images on Commons for this purpose would be [[File:Type_2_Diabetes_Mellitus.jpg|thumb]]
::@[[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]]: I've just taken a stab at trying to condense it down. I've broken it into (1) description and pathophysiology, (2) prevention (for T2DM) and ttreatment, and (3) prevalence. Let me know what you think :) <span style="background-color: #CEF0FD; padding: 2px 4px; border-radius: 6px;">[[User:ItsPugle|'''Tim''']]</span> ([[User_talk:ItsPugle|Talk]]) 10:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
::This one would be good for a layperson if it were in English, but it might be a copyvio looking at the quality: [[File:Diabetes 1.jpg|thumb]] [[User:Sacristy|Sacristy]] ([[User talk:Sacristy|talk]]) 02:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm in agreement, I have also been looking but have not found anything myself. That diagram in Spanish is about diabetes type 1, I would think that we either need one image that captures both, or two images, one for each. [[User:IndigoManedWolf|IndigoManedWolf]] ([[User talk:IndigoManedWolf|talk]]) 02:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::::The pages for [[Diabetes type 1]] and [[Diabetes type 2]] also have the blue circle, so images specific to each are also useful there. [[User:IndigoManedWolf|IndigoManedWolf]] ([[User talk:IndigoManedWolf|talk]]) 02:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
 
==Wiki Education assignment: Exercise Physiology in Aging, ES4300-01==
@[[User:Zefr|Zefr]]: Hi! Just following up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diabetes&diff=prev&oldid=1137001212&diffmode=source your revert], would you mind explaining a bit about what was better in the previous version? <span style="background-color: #CEF0FD; padding: 2px 4px; border-radius: 6px;">[[User:ItsPugle|'''Tim''']]</span> ([[User_talk:ItsPugle|Talk]]) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Kennesaw_State_University/Exercise_Physiology_in_Aging,_ES4300-01_(Fall_2024) | assignments = [[User:Pchung19|Pchung19]] | start_date = 2024-08-12 | end_date = 2024-12-02 }}
 
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:AEcb914|AEcb914]] ([[User talk:AEcb914|talk]]) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
:I would turn the question to you to ask that you describe what changes of yours made the article clearer. Your edit included a spelling error (..."conditions <u>e</u>ffecting" - "affecting") and a poorly-formed sentence ("There is no cure for most cases of diabetes, however some treatments exist." - incorrect use of ''however'' as a conjunction). Otherwise, I saw no clearer text or organization, indicating the previous version was better. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Zefr|Zefr]]: I think as a matter of courtesy and to encourage productive collaboration, the burden is really on the person who reverts an edit to actually explain why they did so (i.e., more than just "Better version" in the edit summary). Keeping with the spirit of [[WP:PRESERVE]], it might be better in the future to fix simple spelling mistakes or wording choices rather than wholly revert an edit which also included much-needed updates/improvements to other sections. As to what I think my edit improves in terms of content, it:
::* defines relevant terms earlier ("hyperglycaemia" etc),
::* actually adds a definition for DM rather than just describing the pathogenesis of the different types,
::* updates the management recommendations to align with current literature and consultant medical advice,
::* provides more specific timeframes for disease onset and the contributing factors,
::* introduces other types of DM (other than T1, T2, and GDM) in an easier-to-read way by breaking a context-less in-line list into a couple sentences.
::If you think that any of these changes weren't actually improvements, I'm always happy to work with you on an acceptable revision :) <span style="background-color: #CEF0FD; padding: 2px 4px; border-radius: 6px;">[[User:ItsPugle|'''Tim''']]</span> ([[User_talk:ItsPugle|Talk]]) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Comments on the existing version vs. your edits:
:::1. ''defines relevant terms earlier'' - the existing version uses plain, clear language and has numerous inline wikilinks; see [[WP:MEDLANG]]
:::2. ''actually adds a definition for DM rather than just describing the pathogenesis of the different types'' - the lede of the existing version provides a sufficient, straightforward description. A common non-medical user would likely read the lede and have an adequate grasp of the topic. For more advanced users, the article is well-developed and sourced to supply a definition
:::3. ''updates the management recommendations to align with current literature and consultant medical advice'' - you inserted the Dynamed source which is commercial spam. There are numerous MEDRS sources that could be checked for updates on management
:::4. ''provides more specific timeframes for disease onset and the contributing factors'' - I didn't see these changes as necessary; they are covered in the article
:::5. ''introduces other types of DM (other than T1, T2, and GDM) in an easier-to-read way by breaking a context-less in-line list into a couple sentences'' - the content is not improved; see [[WP:MEDMOS]], writing style
:::In summary, the previous version was sufficiently clear and better for the common user. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 17:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Zefr|Zefr]]: Just following up:
::::1. You're absolutely correct, the previous version did use plain and clear language. That doesn't mean it can't be improved. It used wikilinks to replace defining simple medical terms like hyperglycaemia, which is not reader-friendly and does not support our readers to actually understand the content and context. In fact, the article does not define hyperglycaemia at all despite it being used as part of other terms further down in the article. We should not be asking readers to chase links to understand terms - see [[MOS:DRAFTNOLINK]].
::::2. Again, I agree - the previous lead did provide a sufficient description... of the pathogenesis of the different types of diabetes (T1DM, T2DM and GDM). It did not actually define DM as the overarching disease class that this article is about. Regardless, the purpose of reverting is to prevent deterioration of the article, not just because a previous version of the article was sufficient (just because it's sufficient, doesn't mean it can't be improved).
::::3. I'm a bit taken aback by your claim that DynaMed is "commercial spam". I was unable to find any discussions (let alone consensus conclusions) about DynaMed being poor quality or unreliable, especially as it is very commonly relied on in practice. DynaMed is a literature review tool (which is highly favoured in [[WP:MEDRS]]), which synthesises literature and clinical practice guidelines to provides point of care advice. The cited content was written by subject matter experts (a professor and clinical director), reviewed by three professors (including one specialist endocrinologist), and approved by another endocrinology professor representing the [[American College of Physicians]]. For your reassurance though, I also reviewed the management approaches listed on BMJ Best Practice and ClinicalKey (both are peer-reviewed, evidence-based point of care tools) which provided the same recommendations - I'm also happy to cite these as supporting sources, if you feel it's justified and not an overacting.
::::4. I don't exactly feel as though you not "see[ing] these changes as necessary" is justification for revert. I see them as an improvement as they provide more specific, evidence-based figures rather than broad statements - would you be able to please describe why you believe that these figures are actually a deterioration of content?
::::5. Can you be a bit more specific about your concerns than just "the content is not improved", please? It's hard to collaborate on an improved revision unless we're able to discuss the exact things that you feel should be refined.
::::I would encourage you to review [[WP:RV|the purpose of reverting]], and as I mentioned, I'm more happy to work with you to fix any specific concerns you have with the revision so that the article continues on a productive, iterative journey. <span style="background-color: #CEF0FD; padding: 2px 4px; border-radius: 6px;">[[User:ItsPugle|'''Tim''']]</span> ([[User_talk:ItsPugle|Talk]]) 03:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Items 1,2,4 and 5 can be reviewed and edited by the usual process of editor consensus, [[WP:CON]]. For #3 about Dynamed, it should not be used, as it is a commercial service and would likely have little meaning to the common non-medical user - see [[WP:MEDMOS]], ''writing for the wrong audience''. A reference like [https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/managing-diabetes the NIDDK of NIH] is more suitable for general readers. [[User:Zefr|Zefr]] ([[User talk:Zefr|talk]]) 21:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diabetes"