Talk:Diabetic retinopathy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Important bits added

I added the critical role of sorbitol to the disease which is currently missing from the article and also the results from the clinical trial of the light mask therapy.

Merge laser sections ?

I suggest merging the paragraphs "Laser surgery" and "Scatter Laser treatment"

Yes. Panretinal photocoagulation and scatter laser therapy, seem to be the same thing, as scatter laser therapy is confirmed as being a synonim to panretinal photocoagulation, one paragraph after it was addressed as a different treatment. i suggest reviewing this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.150.143.37 (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

advert

Some of the Diagnosis section reads like an advert for Retasure. Rod57 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While the information is appropriate, it must be referenced. There must be references that the sales rep could use. Until then, I am deleting that content.Desoto10 (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy.

i think that a section called "epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy" should be introduced in the begining of the article, since it is very important to know the prevalence and incidence of the diabetic retinopathy in many societies and subpopulation of the world. i'll try to upload next time some facts and numbers, because prevalence is not the same between populations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roland.nacouzi (talk • contribs) 19:35:49, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Review

A systematic review of modalities for DR treatment: JAMA. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

hyperphacosorbitomyopicosis

The final sentence of "signs and symptoms" describes a HYPEROPIC shift, which conflicts with the previous sentence. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.68.181 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ayurvedic nonsense

It really needs to go. It's just copied and pasted from the 'source', if you can call it that. 80.5.113.98 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have deleted the section. In addition to being a possible copyvio, it is unintelligible because it contains many undefined non-English terms. bd2412 T 02:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Sources

Source 15 about "Pine bark extract" is not a reliable or verifiable source. The study in question has not been reproduced, was funded by the company who provides the product, and is not a common medical treatment, nor a common alternative method for treatment of this problem. Its not pertinent enough for inclusion on this topic. 97.92.204.83 (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a press release, and not a proper reference. I second deletion — but lack the WikiSelfConfidence to do it myself. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1