Talk:Arthritis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rgonzalezrios, Blu65, Crystalnguyentan, Yalda22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Headings

Where is the page for Alternative Treatments? What are they? How are they used? Proven or Anecdotal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanTree (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends which type of arthritis you're talking about. This should be on the relevant pages for those diseases. JFW | T@lk 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Where in Arthritis do I learn more about its connection to HIV? When I posted it as a cause it was noted as fact but then deleted.

Well, which type of arthritis is caused by HIV? JFW | T@lk 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Older discussion

Where in Arthritis do I learn more about its connection to HIV? When I posted it as a cause it was noted as fact but then deleted.

Can someone put the history of arthritis in? If someone knows about it.

I've put a lot of stuff in, but this is just the beginning. The main question is whether or not to break up the various arthritis types, ditch the redirects, and use this page only as some sort of a disambiguation container.

Your views please, and some more data. Jfdwolff 21:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I've had the kishkes (Yiddish: guts) to split this horrible article into subarticles, which makes editing it less forbidding. Any external links that purport arthritis treatments will meet with a lot of resistance from me - if the person adding the link can't even distinguish between different arthritis types their links are not worthy of inclusion. JFW | T@lk 02:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, because this link is heading to that direction. Promising treatment. They do however provide more information. like the paragraph below. " Cartilage contains a crucial component called aggrecan, which functions like a shock absorber, helping the tissue bear load and resist compression." [1]

If you read that article, you see that it is another health journalist blabbering. Aggrecanase-2 inhbition is doubted as being efficatious by Dr Devey. Just wait until more research is published. Not every BBC Health article belongs in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 06:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

some people get it for no dam reason i dont know but my ifngers ar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.27.88 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

"All arthritides feature pain. Patterns of pain differ among the arthridities and the location." Is it arthritides or arthridities? The Real Walrus 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Treatment

A few days ago, I was talking to a reflexologist, and they were talking about treatments for long-term ailments that the Amish used. They visited an Amish woman with arthiritis, who was no allowed to take medicine or have surgery for her Arthiritis. She said that she would rid herself of the pain by taking off her shoes and socks and standing on metal plates, and that it had something to do with electrical charges in the nervous system. Can anyone validate or elaborate this?--ikiroid | (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The Amish would regard TENS as awfully newfangled and equally forbidden. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

healthyjoints.com link

I think that a link should be added at the bottom of the arthritis page to healthyjoints.com. Healthy Joints is an online support group and informational exchange for people with an interest in arthritis and other joint problems. It would be a great resource for anyone on the arthritis page.

Here's a link to the site: [2]

Thanks, Daphne Daphne90210 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion - it doesn't pass WP:EL, the external link guidelines. The content on the site is pretty shallow. Much of it is just links to other sites like http://www2.ejbjs.org. One page is basically a bunch of links back to Wikipedia: http://www.healthyjoints.com/resources/term-glossary.php. Linking to forums is strongly advised against, and in this case there are maybe 1 or 2 posts. Really not a notable site and it seems like it gets mosts of its useful content from other sites. Plus, linking a general site on an article about a specific subject is advised against. (By the way, this link was also proposed on the Hip replacement and Knee replacement pages as well. I'll post these comments there as well.) Nposs 03:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

some dam people have athritis for no reason i ate healthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.27.88 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookies typo?

The words "of cookies" doesn't add to this summary of autoimmune diseases: "in which the body is of cookies attacking itself". Perhaps the author meant 'of course'? Miracle Max 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is vandalism, note the sentence in the history section "members of the family who have kissed a frog one ion there life and dating a cookie". 124.176.184.18 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

Is the Arizona Arthritis Centre link being kept or not? I don't wnat it turning into a slow edit war Adam Slack 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia talk:External links#Why do we keep getting deleted? just now. I've directed them here. --Quiddity 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all the other links can stay as long as they are not from the University of Arizona. The explanations given are that Wikipedia is not a link repository, however, the administrators seem to have no problem leaving any other link there. Someone said, not to take it personal, but we are the only site that gets deleted. It is personal, but if they want to delete us, they "own" Wiki. Everyones loss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prhowe520 (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:TALK and WP:SIGN for proper talk page protocols. The link is not a comprehensive compilation of information on arthritis, it only contains research results for the centre's own work. Further, readers would have to navigate to the relevant page on research. The parts that would be of use are the minority, far overshadowed by the links for the activities, qualifications of the staff, and things which do not symetrically relate to the arthritis page. Please read our external links policy before adding links to articles. WLU 16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of extraneous material.

I've removed this:

Around 500 BC willow bark gained popularity when it was discovered to help relieve some of the aches and pains of arthritis. It wasn't until more than 2,000 years later, in the early 1820s, that European scientists began to scientifically study the chemical compound in willow bark that alleviated the arthritis symptoms. They discovered the compound was salicin. When they isolated salicin, however, they found it was very noxious to the stomach. Almost 80 years later, in 1897, an employee of Bayer Company -- then a dye production company -- named Felix Hoffman discovered how to isolate the compound and make it less irritating to the stomach. Hoffman was attempting to make the drug in order to help his father, who was suffering from arthritis. In 1899, Bayer Company trademarked Hoffman's discovery under the name "Aspirin." Today it is believed that over a trillion tablets of aspirin have been sold worldwide.

because it is completely extraneous and really belongs in Aspirin.

I suggest a section regarding pain management.

And we could also do with some more references...

Evilteuf 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of References

One of the things that I find particularly troubling about this article is that there are not references. Especially with medical information (and maybe it is my medical school training bias), it is very important to have references for the information. Hence the reason the reference were added for the information that I added.

Furthermore, external links per Wikipedia are designed for an article that could not possibly include all information. I found this particular Wikipedia article to be light; therefore, the external link was added.

Finally, "link spamming" as defined by Wikipedia -- link spam takes advantage of link-based ranking algorithms, such as Google's PageRank algorithm, which gives a higher ranking to a website the more other highly ranked websites link to it. These techniques also aim at influencing other link-based ranking techniques such as the HITS algorithm." The fact is that there is a no follow attribute within Wikipedia that prevents link spamming.

For these following reasons, I felt that it was necessary to return the article to its previous state. Comments or questions are appreciated.Sailormd 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is low on references, but your selected reference (eMedTV) is not quite suitable, being itself completely unreferenced and written by a probably non-authoritative anonymous editor. It is the lowest quality of health information available. See WP:MEDRS for some further explanations. JFW | T@lk 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you as this is the same problem that I had with this article. While the information generally is accurate, its lack of references impacts its credability.24.17.192.108 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mention prevalence

Say what percentage of the population gets the disease. Jidanni 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends which form of arthritis you're talking about. OA is more common than RA, for instance. JFW | T@lk 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The missing link: Bacterial infections.

Many Lyme patients were firstly diagnosed with other illnesses such as Juvenile Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Reactive Arthritis, Infectious Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Fibromyalgia, Raynaud's Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Interstitial Cystis, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Fifth Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, scleroderma, lupus, early ALS, early Alzheimers Disease, crohn's disease, ménières syndrome, reynaud's syndrome, sjogren's syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, prostatitis, psychiatric disorders (bipolar, depression, etc.), encephalitis, sleep disorders, thyroid disease and various other illnesses. see

Source: Canadian Lymes Association

This material may apply to a variety of illnesses. Like my research has suggested the testing for this one possible cause is difficult, and if overlooked then the patient has very little chance of cure.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Lyme can cause an erosive arthropathy. I agree that the level of suspicion for Lyme needs to be quite high. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Myth or fact: does "popping" or "cracking" your knuckles lead to arthritis?

Information on this might be helpful. 914ian915 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we're an encyclopedia. Google the Straight Dope or any related site. JFW | T@lk 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, a quick mention would be enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Radon therapy

A few times already I've added a sentence stating that Radon Therapy is used in many parts of the world to reduce inflammation of joints. And someone is shameless enough to delete it.

My wife has arthritis. It came to the point that she could not sleep at night. A week ago we came back from Montana, where she spent about 30 hours in a radon mine. Guess what? She feels 10 times better. We have seen many people there who tell the same story.

I was born in the republic of Georgia (former Soviet Union), near a small city Tshaltubo, where arthritis patients from all over the Soviet Union were taking radon baths. Those radon baths did help about 90% of the patients. My aunt was coming from Belarus every other year. My mother-in-law, also from Belarus, used to go there. It was not a placebo, and not a short-term psychological effect. Radon therapy is working for a huge majority of sufferers. Radon therapy is more effective than drugs.

Radon is radioactive? Well, yes. But Big Pharma drugs also have side effects, and it's not clear what is actually worse, - radon therapy or Big Pharma drugs.

An hell of lot of fear about radiation has been spread by awful research wrongly accepted by non nuclear science scientists especially quack doctors of the environment protection sort. See you tube videos on the subject of thorium reactors, especially those about the work of Kirk Sorenson.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why radon therapy is used in so many parts of the world? Probably, because they don't have a Big Pharma industry that is so much interested to sell pharmaceutical drugs. The bottom line, as everyone knows, is profits.

I'm asking everyone to protect that sentence about radon therapy. Wikipedia should not be a tool of Big Pharma.

--Michael Vilkin--Mikevilkin (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid inflammatory comments like "shameless" and "Big Pharma". They are not constructive.

I have removed your contributions because you need better sources. I gave clear explanations in my edit summaries, but I suspect you need to learn about using the page history to see what's been happening and why.

I think we need academic sources (not some website) to demonstrate that (1) radon therapy is popular, (2) concerns about radioactivity appear unfounded, (3) radon therapy has been tested scientifically. Once you advise us on these sources (especially evidence of popularity) I see no reason why we can't mention radon therapy. A quick glance on PubMed reveals about 60 publications, including some that indicate that use of radon therapy is not without controversy. JFW | T@lk 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JFW, thank you very much for suggestions. You are asking to demonstrate that (1) radon therapy is popular, (2) concerns about radioactivity appear unfounded, (3) radon therapy has been tested scientifically. Let me address the three questions in order.

1. Radon therapy is popular, indeed. Radon therapy page has some info, and I can add a dozen more links to most famous places in the world where radon therapy is used to treat arthritis.

2. I would not make a statement that concerns about radioactivity appear unfounded. Even very innocent things may cause a lot of damage to one's health. For example, if you eat a lot of the-best-on-the-market ice cream for a long time, you will get very fat, your arteries will get clogged, and you will die. Use of radon should cause even more concerns than eating Haagen Dazs ice cream. But both can be deadly if not used properly.

You need to adjust the following "Everyone knows that radioactivity is harmful." because the original research into the harmful effects of radiation was criminally fraudulent.

I have done you the favour of removing the sentence as it serves no purpose other than to add to the fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKTalzqVFhQ

Weatherlawyer (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is, what is worse, - to get a dose of harmful radioactivity that relieves arthritis symptoms, or to suffer from arthritis. Last year my wife slept for 2 or 3 hours per night because of pain from arthritis. We were thinking to travel to Tzkhaltubo, Georgia (former Soviet Republic), but a simple Google search allowed us to locate Montana radon mines. Now, after she spent about 30 hours in a radon mine, she sleeps at least 7 hours per night, and she is happy. She walks fast on a beach, and she feels like 10 years younger.

The question is not whether radioactivity is harmful. The question is, what is worse, - to get a dose of radioactivity or to die slowly from arthritis and sleepless nights.

3. Radon therapy has been tested scientifically, indeed. In the Soviet Union, where I was born, it was standard treatment for arthritis. I was born near small city of Tzkhaltubo, Georgia, where more than a million people have been treated in a few decades. And communists would not pay for sanatorium treatment of people if it were not beneficial. They would rather invest that money in the arms race.

Chmelnik, Ukraine (former Soviet Union), is a well-known spa town, where 70 thousands people come to receive treatment each year. Such activity would not be allowed without scientific testing. Again, if radon therapy were not beneficial to arthritis sufferers, communists would not invest money in it. I can offer dozens of examples. See also 100 years of Radon therapy Hope this answers your questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevilkin (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When I asked you to demonstrate something I wasn't asking for your personal experiences. I was asking for reliable sources, not a paper that hasn't even been published. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I don't understand your logic. On the page Radon therapy there are reliable sources of information - web cites of radon spas, where radon therapy is used. You only need to visit those web sites to see for yourself. That will be sufficient to establish that radon therapy is used in Austria, Szech Republic, Ukraine, and Montana-US. I can add a few more sections, if that is not enough.

I did not intend to go into debates about effectiveness of radon therapy. That is entirely different matter. Article Radon therapy only states the fact that radon therapy is used on those places.

Since you are asking me for reliable sources - to prove what? - I did a Google search for "radon+arthritis". The first article there is "Long-term efficacy of radon spa therapy in rheumatoid arthritis—a randomized, sham-controlled study and follow-up" at this address [3]. This article has been published by British Society of Rheumatology. You are working in that country, are you not? So it should not be difficult to verify this info. The article states the following: "Conclusion. Marked short-term improvements in both groups at the end of treatment may have masked potential specific therapeutic effects of radon baths. However, after 6 months of follow-up the effects were lasting only in patients of the radon arm. This suggests that this component of the rehabilitative intervention can induce beneficial long-term effects."

Again, I did not have any intention to get into medical debates. My goal is to inform people that radon therapy is used in many parts of the world to treat arthritis. I do not make any statements about effectiveness of radon therapy. Can I add a sentence to the Arthritis article stating that radon therapy is used in many parts of the world? I feel like back in the Soviet Union. I can not even state a fact that radon therapy is used in many parts of the world. It's unbelievable. --Mikevilkin (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the screen when you edit. It says "encyclopedic content must be verifiable". It is not acceptable to send your readers to Google to find evidence for themselves.

The study you cite is really quite small. That suggests to me that as a modality it might be popular but does not have much of a research base and is unlikely to get recommended in professional guidelines. JFW | T@lk 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from main article

I think this should be in a subarticle, and certainly not in the intro given its relative rarity:

There is also a form of osteoarthritis caused by various forms of hemophilia, and has been diagnosed in patients with Von Willebrand Disease. The theoretical basis of this type of arthritis is explained as being caused by physical exertion accompanied by shock to joints, thus causing small amounts of bleeding into the joints. This is contrary to many medical opinions, but has been observed by patients and physical therapists in a few cases where individuals with Von Willebrand Disease also suffered osteoarthritis which worsened after using aspirin which destroys the ability of platelets to function correctly, or other NSAIDS, such as ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. These NSAIDS suppress platelet function rather than destroy it as aspirin does. The result of the use of any of these NSAIDS is a propensity to bleed, as it is more commonly termed medically, a heightened bleeding diathesis.

Opinions invited. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact-tagged content

San Fernando Valley (talk · contribs) removed some doubtful content that had been tagged {{fact}} for a long time. I support the removal of this content. One claimed that arthritis is the main cause of disability in the over-55s (I thought it was stroke). Another claimed that "emerging evidence" indicated abnormal anatomy as a major cause of arthritis. JFW | T@lk 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

arthritis disability

Hi, i sure hope someone can answer my question, i have been suffering with my arthritis for along time now, i finally had an MRI yesterday. Im not sure if anyone else has this side effect but when im in pain all i want to do is sleep, i forgot to mention that i work as a waitress & im so broke from taking time off from work. As a Canadian does anyone know how i go about getting disability or even if i can,,,,,, im just at my wits end with my pain & my financial status,its just so hard 2 keep up with the rent when i keep taking time off . If anyone can help me i would really appreciate it, thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.166.27 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• VanItallie TB (2010). "Gout: epitome of painful arthritis". Metab. Clin. Exp. 59 Suppl 1: S32–6. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2010.07.009. PMID 20837191. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Seed SM, Dunican KC, Lynch AM (2009). "Osteoarthritis: a review of treatment options". Geriatrics. 64 (10): 20–9. PMID 20726384. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Fitzcharles MA, Lussier D, Shir Y (2010). "Management of chronic arthritis pain in the elderly". Drugs Aging. 27 (6): 471–90. doi:10.2165/11536530-000000000-00000. PMID 20524707. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Anandarajah A (2010). "Erosive osteoarthritis". Discov Med. 9 (48): 468–77. PMID 20515616. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Regule D (2010). "An update on inflammatory arthropathies including pharmacologic management and preoperative considerations". Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 27 (2): 183–91. doi:10.1016/j.cpm.2009.12.010. PMID 20470951. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Blanked section

I'm new at editing here on Wikipedia. I deleted the paragraph in "Other" regarding psoriasis because there were numerous errors in regard to the associated arthritis. I apologize to those who are looking for info on psoriatic arthritis and find nothing here; I wasn't sure yet how to post it correctly. Hopefully it will come soon, and as a separate heading following rheumatoid arthritis, as they are similar and both based in the immune system. In the meantime, the National Psoriasis Foundation is an excellent resource and can be accessed online at www.psoriasis.org. RORiley (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section since it is sourced to the Mayo Clinic which is a realiable source. If you see an error in it from reading the source, then fix it using the source, be bold. Reverting it out though doesn't seem like the proper way since it is sourced. Check the references I give you and welcome to the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Weight loss is the key to improving symptoms and preventing progression

This is in the osteoarthritis section. It doesn't really make sense. It certainly isn't true of all cases, I'm thinking of skinny people. It also does not have a citation.72.187.99.79 (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Symmetrical?

Quoting the article: "The disease is symmetrical and can lead to severe deformity in a few years if not treated. " (From the section "Rheumatoid arthritis")

"Symmetrical" links to Symmetry but I can't tell from that article what it means to say that a disease is symmetrical. Please will someone enlighten me or improve the article to make it clearer? Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Refractory chronic gout

This content was uploaded on behalf of Savient Pharmaceuticals to create awareness surrounding gout and refractory chronic gout.Gout2012 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rework

This article is still rated C-class and in need of some work. I was going to start reworking it unless there's any objections. Anyone interest in working on it as well? Ian Furst (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding references for possible medical procedures

Hi Jytdog,

I just noticed your edit here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Arthritis&curid=1776&diff=621547014&oldid=621546607

Why did you remove the conclusions I've included in this section? There is (IMHO) no copyright issues with bringing conclusions from academic papers, when giving them exact citations (if the cite bot were to work).

Cheers, Tal Galili (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for working to improve the article! We always need more editors on health related topics. I reviewed your contribs quickly... it looks like you work mostly on statistics (and we could use a lot more non-technical discussion of those topics!!) and some on health. Short answer -- as per WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS we rely on reviews to generate content about mainstream medicine. Reviews also help us get a good sense of what is mainstream and common, and what is not. Research (even clinical research) shouldn't be discussed in clinical section (how we actually treat and diagnose). Long answer: Please forgive me if you already know everything about to say. Health-related content has a corps of editors who work to keep health-related content in Wikipedia at a high, high level. One of the biggest motivations for this, is that even though we are always careful (in the background) to say that nobody should rely on WP for health advice... people do. Millions of hits a day. Additionally, there are a lot of crackpot ideas about health out there. So we have developed a source guideline, WP:MEDRS that we apply as much as we can, as consistently as we can. MEDRS calls us to rely on review articles in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and science bodies. Also, there is loads of biomedical research going on all the time, and due to the internet, the public has unprecedented access to scientific publications. Unfortunately, many folks in the public don't understand science at all, and really don't understand biomedical research (bench as well as clinical). The scientific literature exists so scientists can talk to each other, as they try to figure out what the hell is going on. Many many research publications (bench and clinical) turn out to be dead ends, and are never cited again, or are cited rarely. You and I have no way of knowing which research publications (which we call "primary sources") turn out to be important, and which ones are just sitting there, being ignored. Review articles, are where any given field looks over all the work that has been done, and charts the path that is turning out to be true. That is why we rely on them, and not on research publications. Hope that makes sense! (I drafted a too-long essay about some of this, called "Why MEDRS", which is here, if you want to dig in more. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

I appreciate your detailed answer and thoughtful caring for the article!

As you've noted, I'm indeed from the field of statistics (my masters is in statistics with a focus on biostatistics), so I feel somewhat able to respond.

I agree fully with your claim that the main source for articles should be coming from resources such as the cochrane review, and other substantial meta-analysis work. I still think that it is important for readers to be aware of "cutting edge" research, provided it is of relatively high quality (such as RCT). Reviewing the link you provided:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS#Assess_evidence_quality

It appears that we are all in agreement, but the only question is the location of the text (not in the article, or in a dedicated section). Here is a relevant quote from MEDRS:

Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited in ways that suggest wide acceptance. For example, the results of an early-stage clinical trial are unlikely to be appropriate for inclusion in the Treatment section of an article about a disease because a possible future treatment has little bearing on current treatment practice. However, the results might—in some cases—be appropriate for inclusion in an article dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly if citing a secondary source, might also be appropriate for a well-documented section on research directions in an article about a disease. To prevent misunderstandings, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., "first-in-human safety testing").

Hence, I would propose (and prefer) for the sources that I've mentioned to be included in the article, within a section such as "research directions for future treatments", since I think patients and readers will find it useful and interesting to know what is being worked on (and the current level of evidence).

What do you think? Tal Galili (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

reviews or statements from major medical bodies generally tell us what weight any given topic should get. If you could bring a review that discusses them, that would be most helpful. Have you looked? (something like this would be very appropriate) Without that, including these specific pieces of research basically comes down to your judgement, your WP:OR. That is why I am objecting. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC) (striking irrelevant question Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

Hi Jytdog,

Take for example the following paper I cited:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23299850

It has 75 citations (based on google scholar). It is from 2013, so there will be little chance for it being reviewed (since reviews don't come out every year on topics such as this). Citing ONLY reviews will not let us mention any cutting edge research (which is worth noting in topics that are heavily researched). I agree that in a few years, after a review will be made, it is better to remove this citation, after we'll get more perspective on it. In short, I don't think we should only write about things mentioned in reviews (since there are not enough of them), and I agree that newer research should be mentioned in a different section, with relevant cautionary words (based on the type of research).

Thoughts?

Tal Galili (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to ask this, but do you know how to use pubmed? i just did a search for osteoarthritis plasma and used the review filter and found a slew of them. so.... i don't understand where you are coming from. you don't even seem to have taken this discussion seriously enough to go try to find a review, and instead have just kept pushing for what you want. why is this so urgent to you? Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know of the "review" filter in pubmed (I usually go through google scholar). I don't have any particular interest in any of the papers I mentioned in my edit. What I am trying to reach an agreement upon is on keeping papers that are newer and without systematic review. I agree that the example I gave was not good, because it had since had such reviews done. Please assume good faith.

I was not convinced by your writing that this should not be the case (but I understand better what should go where). In the future I will add such citations to the talk page, for diligent people as yourself to do such fine editing on the article. I wish you a nice day. Tal Galili (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

i always assume good faith! but now you are making me think that you don't actually care about that content and I have wasted my time talking with you about it! argh. anyway, to round this out. in health related matters wikipedia is decidedly not cutting edge - our overriding concern is to reliable. Please look at the intro to WP:MEDRS which makes this really clear. As I wrote above, biology and medicine are messy, and it take a long time to understand what is real, and what is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and there is no deadline. When new papers come out that get hyped in the media, people want to come and load content accordingly here. But we are not a newspaper and we don't do hype here. This kind of thing gets discussed endlessly on the Talk page of WP:MEDRS and the community comes down, time and again, that it is more important to provide reliable information than to be cutting edge. anyway, have a great day. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(by the way, google scholar is AWFUL. it mixes in all kinds of chaff. Within the 75 results you cite above, a bunch are from the "journal of prolotherapy" which is a crap trade journal hyping their field, and other stuff like this is mixed in. google scholar citations are not a good measure of significance... Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

Well, while I did not feel obligated to have a specific content entered to this article, I do care about Wikipedia in general. I think/feel you taught me a lot in this discussion, and I appreciate you took the time to do so (i.e.: thanks!). So I truly hope you won't feel your (our) time was wasted. Tal Galili (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

i appreciated your patience as well! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

mold resp. mycotoxins as cause?!

the internet is teaming with hints to mold resp. mycotoxins as cause for arthritis. why is this not mentioned here! may competent people please comment on this and add the point?! thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Early diagnosis?

My ortho surgeon says that a radioactive bone scan of the hands and feet can reveal "hot spots" which will become arthritic years into the future. But apparently this is seen as not useful because patients won't do anything about it because they have no symptoms. That was certainly the case with me :D . For what it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.53.120 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What should the patients do then?

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Foundations 2, 2019, Group 2c Goals

We are a group of four 2nd year pharmacy students who are going to be working on improving this article over the next 2 weeks. We will be:

-Updating epidemiology for the United States, including prevalance by comorbid conditions

-Adding risk factors section

-Updating medication treatment guidelines Blu65 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Group 2B - Student Review

For the article, the group did a good job of editing the article according to the guiding framework. Some objective and neutral edits that were made including statistics that were taken from the CDC. This includes changes in the population numbers, such as “54.4 million” people. A lot of the edits focused on fixing grammatical errors and changing the wording to make the points more neutral. A good edit that I thought provided more insight about the article was “ Osteoclast activity can be directly induced by osteoblasts through the RANK/RANKL mechanism.[37].” This provides more understanding to the specific bone degradation that might occur and what is the specific mechanism.

The group have achieved its overall goals. As mentioned in my previous paragraph, the group found additional information from the CDC website and were able to update the epidemiology portion of it. Additionally, they included prevalence by comorbid conditions as noted by their edit: Adults with co-morbid conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, were seen to have a higher than average prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis (49.3%, 47.1%, and 30.6% respectively). Additionally, they added in a risk factors section under Rheumatoid Arthritis that discussed risk factors including female sex, family history, and tobacco smoke exposure. Their last goal was also achieved as they expanded on different treatments like usage of topical NSAIDs instead of oral NSAIDs due to safety profiles. Kelventran (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Overall, the draft submission reflects a very neutral point of view. A lot of the edits as mentioned by Kelven were statistical changes that are purely factual. Additionally, things like the mechanism of action and safety profile were objective points that were taken from lab results and research. Lauren.chen (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

2) A lot of the edits included a lot of verifiable secondary sources that are easily accessible. For instance, the edits of the epidemiology section included publicly available information from the CDC website.Clphan (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

4) Overall, there are is no plagiarism or copyright violations. The group’s edits were small grammatical errors. Whenever there was information pulled from outside sources, it was paraphrased and cited correctly. Kelventran (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)