Talk:Cysticercosis

References/unreferenced claims

In the section on neurocysticercosis it is repeatedly mentioned that PZT is used and is the preferred choice, but the reference (ref 39) a) doesn't sound like it supports the claim, and b) is behind a paywall. I think mentioning the class of drug used to treat the infection is probably better. 86.15.88.124 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same Worm

Fox news has a video online with a removal of a worm from a womans brain. I can not find any reference to the species, but it does match with the symptons described here; [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.133.162 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was cysticercosis. Quite a shocking video, eh? --—CynRN ^(Talk) 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystercosis Is it the same disease ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.129.1.42 (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged with Cysticercosis, but I don't know how to do it, either. In a Google Scholar search I found that the terms Cistercosis and Cystercosis seem to be used in Spanish language and other non-English papers, but only 29 and 51 hits, respectively. Should the main article have pointers to these other terms? In other words, have the other two terms listed as possible alternate terms for the same disease somewhere toward the top of the article?--—CynRN ^(Talk) 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

seems to have been resolved now by using a redirect. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Differences to the page about Taeniasis?

I have moved to this page some information that was on the page for the organism Taenia solium before (on diagnosis, treatment and epidemiology). However, I am not totally sure if this same information could also apply to the page on Taeniasis? Would it perhaps be helpful to merge the Taeniasis page (which is quite empty) to here, or are diagnosis, treatment, epidemiology vastly different? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Taeniasis is a very different disease, with different treatment diagnosis and prognosis. Thus should be kept separate. There is much confusion around this topic and merging would make more confusing. In the second paragraph of the lead we state "The infection of the intestines with the adult pork tapeworms is known as taeniasis and is a different disease." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure we should move more information from Taeniasis to here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

More references showing the link with sanitation

I just came across this article showing the link between sanitation and cysticercosis: "Why Latrines Are Not Used: Communities’ Perceptions and Practices Regarding Latrines in a Taenia solium Endemic Rural Area in Eastern Zambia" http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0003570. I am wondering if its main results could be included in this article as an example - or if this would be regarded as a less relevant primary source? Articles linking sanitation and this helminth infection are not very common so for me this seems to be relevant. Thoughts, JMWt? If someone has the time, you could check through these references from PLOS online to see if any of them should be included and content used for the article: http://www.plosntds.org/search/advanced?unformattedQuery=subject%3A%22Cysticercosis%22 EvM-Susana (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about the quality of this paper, but it appears to be a primary medical source, so probably not appropriate to cite here.JMWt (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

IMO the first sentence must be as simple as posible. Taenia solium is the pork tapeworm. We do not need to use both terms in the first sentence as it only makes it more complicated. We can simple use the simplier term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not happy with the first sentence. Cysticercosis refers to several parasitic larvae, not just the larval stage of Taenia solium. I would prefer something like:

"Cysticercosis is a tissue infection caused by the larval form of tapeworms of the genus Taenia. It occurs in several animal species and in man."

This article has much in common with the much briefer one on "Cysticercus". I think the two articles should be merged and a broader coverage given so as to cover cysticercosis in all species. Patbol (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Simple wording in the lead

User:Iztwoz IMO

"containing the tapeworm's eggs"

is simpler than

"contaminated by tapeworm's eggs"

Wondering why you changed it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a more 'encyclopaedic' approach to use an appropriate word, well-worn in the English language and readily understood - am always in favour of simplicity and clarity but really don't understand the need for 'dumbing down'. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We get repeatedly criticized in the academic press that we are not writing for our target audience, the general population, but professionals with a university education.

The leads, especially of neglected disease, should be as simple as possible. We know that many people reading our content from the developed world are reading it in English and thus this is their second language.

Doing this is not "dumbing down". Using simple language means both the well educated and those who many only know a little English can understand our content. This is a big part of our goal.

The highly educated have access to the best sources in the world. We should not be catering to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This though is often at the expense of proper communication - to say that eggs are contained in the food or water is just not correct....a raw carrot for example does not contain eggs it harbours them on its surface particularly in its attached contaminated soil. Could not disagree more about not catering to the well-educated an encyclopedia should cater to all who read it. I cannot think of one sector of society who would not know the meaning of contaminated. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think simpler language helps the general population,( complicated wording can be used later in the article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "Could not disagree more about not catering to the well-educated" Do you think we should primarily write for the well educated population our we should write for a general audience?

To state "does not contain eggs it harbours them on its surface" is not the way either carrot or contained is used by common people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither option is particularly simple. How about this?

People usually get cysticercosis after they eat food or drink water that has tapeworm eggs in it.

Iztwoz, the biggest sector of society that does not know the meaning of contaminated is English-language learners. Contain is Simple English; contaminate is not (neither is acquired or tapeworm, nor of course cysticercosis). Also, passive voice ("Cysticercosis is usually acquired") is harder for English language learners than active voice ("People usually get"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Contain and contaminate are two very different words - an English language learner would surely want to extend their vocabulary. --Iztwoz (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I like that suggestion that WAID. With respect to people improving their vocabulary, if are articles go from easy to more difficult it is easier for people to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc James - Have just seen that you removed the very good word contaminated - even after it was linked!? English wikipedia is not Simple English wikipedia. Simple English wikipedia is written for learners of the English language. I can understand your stance against the extreme academic approach - but do you not think that your over simplistic approach is another extreme. The word contaminated is a perfectly OK word - it is used in the lead of Cholera, in the lead of Typhoid fever and of Listeria and countless others. Do you intend to edit out these uses too? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider WAIDs suggestion to be an improvement on what was their before and what you changed it to and thus changed it to that. I do a great deal of both writing and simplifying leads of article. I am going to go around and systematically remove specific words, no.

But here is where we disagree. I do not consider this to be overly simplistic. Yes one does not want to take it to extreme but I do not believe either I or WAID have. I am happy to have a more general discussion of this issue with the wider community if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What it does mean is that I am going to adjust my editing going forwards to edit more like WAID has suggested.

This is similar to the issue of primary sources. I do not plan to systematically remove them all. I do however frequently remove or try to update them with secondary sources when I come across them.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WAID's is better - there's little useful here at contamination in fact. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

But ---it's not grammatically correct! --Iztwoz (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Iztwoz, please explain why you believe that it's grammatically incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two things referred to - food and water------and the sentence ends with eggs in it. Which is the it? --Iztwoz (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Those two sentences don't mean the same thing to me. WAID's version can be read as "Usually, when people drink water or eat food with tapeworm eggs in it, they get cysticercosis." and Doc James' original version means "Usually, when people have cysticercosis, they got it from water or food with tapeworm eggs in it." Striving for simplicity at the word-by-word level shouldn't make the overall statement less precise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree WAIDs version can be read in two different ways. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)