Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Videos[edit]

Anorexia nervosa[edit]

  • Anorexia nervosa
  • Video specifies 85% body weight as being diagnostic. DSM5 uses BMI (although is mentioned later in video). Mostly ok but the psychotherapy treatment at 7.05 is problematic as it is too simplistic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breastfeeding[edit]

File:Breastfeeding.webm

Errors

  • Video states "Breast milk contains all the nutrients a baby needs for its first year". Every medical authority advises that solid foods should begin to be introduced at 6 months. The WHO states, "Exclusive breastfeeding is no longer sufficient to meet all energy and nutrient needs by itself, and complementary foods should be introduced to make up the difference."
  • The video states that breastfeeding problems following breast reduction/augmentation surgery are"rare". This is not correct. Low milk supply after reduction mammoplasty is not rare. It is associated with a fivefold increase of risk of lactation insufficiency. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies of mothers who have had this surgery be monitored to make sure they are getting enough milk. According to a Cochrane review, " This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that women with breast implants who breastfeed were less likely to exclusively feed their infants with breast milk compared to women without breast implants."
  • In discussing nipple soreness the video mentions only topical creams and ointments Every good review of breastfeeding strongly emphasizes the fact that nipple soreness is almost always the result of a poor latch. Also, contrary to the video, nipple pain is normal for the first couple of days, not the first few suckles. Again, showing that the creator of the video has no understanding of "correct latch", an illustration is used that shows a baby suckling without proper latch; the illustration shows the baby mouthing the nipple.
  • Less egregious than the above problems, but still worth mentioning, the video correctly says that babies should nurse every 1 to 3 hours but skips the part about 8 to 12 feeds a day and does not mention that this frequency applies to only the first few weeks. Poor mother! Can you imagine nursing every hour for the recommended 30 to 45 minutes? In another instance information was also cut short leading to misleading information. Discussing health benefits the video choose a few, apparently at random, benefits while our article lists numerous benefits. If one were to only watch the video rather than read the article they would come away with a misunderstanding as to the benefits of nursing. The video would have been much more accurate if it had merely stated "numerous benefits".

Perhaps the many incorrect "facts" in this video are related to the fact that the MD that made it specializes in genetics. Even still, if this company can be trusted they should review all videos before releasing them, which very obviously was not done in this case. It also concerns me that Doc James refused to delete this video four months ago, calling the mistakes "minor". Gandydancer (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliac disease[edit]

Dementia with Lewy bodies[edit]

Sources:

  • Le, T., Bhushan, V., Sochat, M., & Chavda, Y. (2017). 'First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 2017 (27 edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education / Medical.  ?????
  • Sattar, H. (2017). Fundamentals of pathology: Medical Course and Step 1 Review (1 edition). No publisher, no pages.
  • Kumar, V., Abbas, A. K., and Aster, J. (2015). Robbins and Cotran: Pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders.

Books with no page numbers, and not likely to have used a single source that reflects 2017 Fourth Consensus Report from Dementia with Lewy Bodies Consortium

  1. Appears to equate REM sleep behavior disorder to sleepwalking and sleeptalking, huge lost opportunity to help further accurate diagnosis
  2. Not a service to our readers if we don't distinguish Alzheimer's from DLB; one is an encoding memory problem, other is retrieval ... learning new information
  3. Poor memory is not typically an early symptom (that would be Alzheimer's) ... typical early symptom is fluctuating cognition. Video says "typical to Alzheimer's" and misses the opportunity to distinguish.
  4. Completely miss that the earliest symptom of all is REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD), which is dream enactment behavior that can appear years to decades before the other "early" symptoms they mention. With >90% predictive value for synucleinopathies, most of which are DLB, opportunity missed.
  5. Sleep disorders are mentioned, but they have completely left out RBD, a core feature. Probably because they did not have the new consensus criteria when doing the video.
  6. Mention levodopa, which is problematic, but never mention one of the single most deadly facts about DLB: severe antipsychotic sensitivity, serious missed opportunity, particularly if educating medical students, since this is often fatal

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 was in reference to text that said something about Early symptoms. Apparently I lost the text in question on edit. And to get the text again, I would have to listen to the video again. Hence the problem with verifying and dealing with these videos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy[edit]

Tic disorder[edit]

  1. "suffer from" POV, there is no significant impairment or distress criterion in the DSM for TS precisely in recognition that not everyone "suffers", this is demeaning. The "significant impairment or distress" requirement was removed from DSM-IV-TR and neither it is included in DSM-5.
  2. Medication-- no mention of most common, which is "nothing needed but education"-- medication is most often not needed at all
  3. Mention of haldol, the least likely to be used, because ... well ... haldol sucks (side effects are worse than benefit)
  4. Problem in whole simple/complex (related to quick/sudden)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Doc James, I think I saw you write that sources are available on request, i.e. that individual editors have to apply for access. But sources have to be made available to any reader who wants to check content. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin sources are avaliable. For example if you looks at the scripts listed here you will see them.
Getting them to update that page as not all scripts are present.
Also for some you can see the sources on Commons.[1] and in others they occur at the end of the videos themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the sources for Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. They are:

Some of those aren't MEDRS-compliant, and none are in the sense that there are no page numbers. Would it not be better to remove the videos until there's consensus and they've been evaluated? SarahSV (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At dementia with Lewy bodies, they use a first aid manual (??) and sources that are too old to have included the new, 2017 Consensus diagnostic criteria. Hence the failure to convey the significance of RBD (which is greater than 90% predictive of development of a synucleinopathy and a core feature of DLB). Also, per WP:V, our readers need to be able to check sources. If I have a hard time negotiating how to find these sources at commons, imagine the average person. The sources are not visible on en.wikipedia. Is that not required by WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: sorry, I've just seen this. Yes, per V, we need inline citations. Readers have to be able to check sources for themselves, even if it means perhaps having to wait for an inter-library loan. They shouldn't have to go hunting on Commons for citations, then find that a textbook is mentioned as supporting something (but supporting what?) and with no page numbers. Defeats the whole point of the policy. SarahSV (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAs with Osmosis videos[edit]

Often in the lead. These videos introduce various issues with WP:WIAFA. (I may have missed some.)

  • Cannot find sources
  • Source: Principles and Practice of Medical Genetics. Ch 117. Basal ganglia disorders. No publisher, no editor or author, no page numbers, no year !!! No idea what this source is
  • Sources: Sources: Pathoma First aid  ????
  • Wikipedia Khan academy videos by Emma Giles ????
  • PMID 23729617 PMID 23917951-2013 for treatment PMID 20101274-2010 for treatment PMID 12804486-2003 for treatment PMID 27389773, old sources for treatment, no recent secondary reviews
  • http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1831191-overview

Scripts[edit]

We are told scripts are here, but most are not.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was told that some scripts were there. Agree many are missing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most are missing, and there are no sources, just a brief list of "resources" at the end, which (in the ones I looked at) include Wikipedia and other non-RS. SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are references at the end of many of them. Agree that these are not inline references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're not MEDRS-compliant. If an editor had submitted these as text, you wouldn't have let it stay in the articles for a minute without MEDRS sources, and you definitely wouldn't have let them add their company logo. SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues&oldid=833158926"