Talk:Addison's disease

Dated content

Moving here from lead dated content (1981) regarding reported "associations":

Addison's disease can be described in association with chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis, acquired hypoparathyroidism, diabetes mellitus, pernicious anemia, hypogonadism, chronic and active hepatitis, malabsorption, immunoglobulin abnormalities, alopecia, vitiligo, spontaneous myxedema, Graves' disease, and chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis.

References

86.182.104.203 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"rare"

This:

the average reader knows what rare is but may not understand that 1 in 10,000 is considered rare for a disorder

is the most baffling claimed justification for an edit that I can ever recall seeing. Nobody knows what "rare" without any context actually means. Everybody understands that 10,000 is a much bigger number than 1. 81.106.71.55 (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey I was just going to start a convo on the talk page about this since you reverted my most recent edit. When it comes to medical diseases "rare" means a condition that effects less than 200,000 people in the US (source, i'm sure you could find a less US centric source somewhere as well but I'm just using the FDA since it's a well established source). Addisons disease fits this criteria.

The reason why I think putting rare in the first sentence is appropriate is because numbers (especially bigger ones like 9 to 14 per 100,000 people) are hard to visualize. additionally, for example something affecting 1 in 100 people might seem rare in other contexts (for example naturally blonde hair is considered rare but has a prevelance of about 2%, so 2 in 100) it isn't rare in the world of medicine. Obviously if someone knows this then saying Addisons disease is rare seems obvious however Wikipedia is written for the average reader.

I'm not going to undo your revert as I would rather others weigh in on this topic however Addisons disease is considered rare, the page has existed with that in the lead for some time without any issues, and tons of other articles state that a disease is rare without any issues. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with labelling diseases as rare, provided that it is an apt description. Addisons is not only rare by the "rare diseases" standard, but also when compared to "common" endocrine disorders such as diabetes and hypothyroidism. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Addison's being rare is a huge part of the disorder. Because it's so rare, it's often misdiagnosed and can take years to diagnose. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Rare disease covers all this. I have reverted. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I support the reversion. Anyone who wonders what "rare" means can click on the link to rare disease. In general, all diseases that are described with the exact term "rare disease" in reliable sources (unless it's disputed by others, of course) should be described as a rare disease, with the link, in the lead of the article. This is part of the encyclopedic context of rare diseases: you cannot understand the subject if you don't understand that it is both statistically uncommon (which could be achieved by "1 in 10,000") and also subject to various regulatory schemes (which cannot by achieved by stating the prevalence). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I also added the link to rare disease. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)