Talk:Dyshidrosis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent Edits by 165.228.154.229 and General Quality

So, the edits made by 165.228.154.229 seemed to add some questionably sourced information, poor formatting, and a press release about a drug that was already discussed in the article. Unless he or she comes to defend it, I'm deleting it. Also, I'm going to take on the task of cleaning this article up generally. The previous talk commenters here are right, a lot of this article looks like unsourced original research. I'll try to find reliable sources for what people have put on here, but if I can't, it will be removed. Bowfee (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was initially going to wait a while before deleting 165.228.154.229's contributions to give him or her a chance to respond, but now that I've checked the sources on all this, and am now sure they're poorly sourced if at all, I'm deleting them now. Bowfee (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality of Article

This is one of the worst medical articles I've ever seen. The problem is hereditary, where blood serum suddenly appears in bubbles under the skin. Almost nothing about it is known, but instead of just saying so and leaving it at that, this article presents long lists of pseudoscientific rubbish about possible this and potential that that have no more basis in science than a long list of possible evidences that an old woman might just be a witch.

Everything except the name, the photos, that it's hereditary, and that nothing more is known, should be deletedTuanglen (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED. It is allergy to a dermatophyte. There is no peer reviewed article or even circumstantial evidence to show that it is in any way hereditary.

Carole the catlover, podiatrist and studying dyshidrosis. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Carolethecatlover (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, nonsense. My father had it, I have it, and my kid has it. One grew up on the US west coast, one on the east coast, and one in the desert southwest. All of us started showing symptoms at the same age, and my father and I followed the same time course through our lives. You may as well be telling me that there isn't a scrap of evidence that the sky is blue. Evidence isn't proof, of course, but when some podiatrist shouts that there isn't "even circumstantial evidence" that a somewhat rare condition that has afflicted my family for nearly a century, hitting us all at the same age despite growing up with radically different climates, lifestyles, and diets, is "in any way hereditary," I'm not going to grant you some sort of authority status; you're obviously wrong. There definitely is evidence that it may in some way be hereditary. (I'm not the only one who thinks so. Go to Google Scholar and search for "pompholyx" and "chromosome" and see for yourself.) Except for the picture, this article is just a waste of virtual space. Unfortunately, very little is known about this condition, so any article about it will either be very short or full of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added byTuanglen (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The overall quality of this article is extremely poor, and there simply aren't citations for many of the claims in the article, which don't appear to be substantiated with medical studies. This article needs a clean-up and a removal of most of the information without cites. This is supposed to be near-professional quality health information, not random alt-health anecdotes.

If you wish to include your personal opinions or theories about the etiology of diseases that is not substantiated by science, this is not the correct manner in which you should do so. There is a difference between random brotelligence from a Yahoo group discussing dyshidrosis and medical research, and much of the content of this article seems ignorant of that fact.

Regardless, I'm not about to try to sort through and research the myriad of questionable claims nor get into edit wars. However, I certainly hope someone does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by69.144.19.70 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree. most of this article is useless as it seems that no one knows what really causes it or how to actually treat it. HOWEVER, i have been trying to find out what this is for a while now (well over a year), so this article was helpful in finally helping me figure out what it is that i have had plaguing me (though i didn't first find out from the wiki article itself). i think the main importance of this article is things that would help one IDENTIFY this condition. 126.115.166.17 (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sourcing needed for this, but one facet of dyshidrosis that bears mentioning is that it is often misdiagnosed as garden variety eczema, and often even dermatologists will need to have it suggested to them before they will research the disease and make a determination as to whether a case is dyshidrosis or not. The feature that most sufferers go by when making an off-the-cuff call as to whether someone else has it is the size/depth of the vesicles which are tiny and deeply seated during the early stage compared to regular eczema, and the tendency to form only on the sides and near-nail area of fingers, but nowhere else on the body save the feet. (71.233.165.69 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

The last external link contains a link to a yahoo group. That's a very useful support resource with a good number of members, growing relatively rapidly, sharing their experiences dealing with the symptoms of both severe and mild cases. Though a disclaimer about taking medical advice from nonlicensed netizens is probably in order, it might bear more prominent placement directly in the wiki. (71.233.165.69 07:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Under 'Causes' I'd like to add some items, but would like feedback on the correct way to organise these. There are a bunch of related conditions that may (or may not) cause Dishydrosis that are all related to the Gut, these include: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Crohn's, Ulcerative colitis, intestinal yeast infection and Leaky Gut Syndrome. In effect, the theory is that hydrosis is caused by problems with the immune system, the source of which can be found with problems in the gut. My problem is in correctly defining these conditions as I believe IBS includes Crohn's and Ulcerative colitis, and LGS and intestinal yeast infections are not generally accepted medical conditions. I'd love to hear what others think in terms of which of these conditions should be included as possible causes and how they should be listed. Dbnull 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the first part of your comment, but "I believe IBS includes Crohn's and Ulcerative colitis," is not true - I think you have Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) which includes Crohns & Ulverative Collitis and will have raised infalmmatory blood tests results for ESR & CRP and clear abnormalities seen on biopsy histology, mixed with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) in which all tests are normal. As for Dyshidrosis and bowel disorders - sorry, unable to comment. David Ruben ^Talk 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David, my error. I'm confusing IBS with IBD.

If you're going to include things which are "not generally accepted medical conditions" you should probably add something to the article making it clear that they're not recognized by "real" (if you will) medicine. Lone wanderer (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Causes, treatments

Research needs to be done and citations needed, for the fact that the 'Causes' of dyshidrosis lists 'sweat retention'. Although dyshidrosis was previously thought to be a sweating disease, this is a long discarded theory, and while 'humidity' is posited as a trigger, it is not considered a causative. Further, all the triggers/causes of dyshidrosis should also list everything within atopic eczema and contact dermatitis - this condition is thoroughly irritated by things like detergents AND fruit juices, and there do tend to be underlying allergies as with contact dermatitis, however, the list of causes on this page completely ignores this part, rather treating the page as an adjunct to eczema.

Also of note is the fact that while immunomodulators such as Protopic and Elidel are being used for dyshidrosis, they've not been researched or tested for use specifically in this condition. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 220.245.158.108 (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please readthe external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

• Online discussion groups or chat forums
• Personal webpages and blogs
• Multiple links to the same website
• Fundraising events or groups
• Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
• Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A link to Yahoo! Groups was removed and then added again. I've removed it again (WP:ELNO clearly says not to link to Yahoo! Groups), so I'm making note of the incident here for future reference. —Mu Mind (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rolled back edits by 131.172.34.1

I've rolled back several edits by 131.172.34.1 from March 2011 because they were anonymous edits with no edit summaries, contained many unsourced claims, and monkeyed with the formatting of much of the article. For future reference, there was also a batch of contentious edits a few months before from165.228.154.229. —Mu Mind (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dermatophyte-related edits

A recent batch of edits by Carolethecatlover (talk|contrib) doesn't seem constructive to me because it adds or modifies claims all throughout the article without providing any sources, and doesn't have any edit summaries to explain why the changes were made. The claims that were already made in this article may have been inaccurate, and several didn't have sufficient sources, but I believe it's inappropriate to replace them outright with opposing unsourced claims (please consider using {{Citation needed}} for contentious claims instead of deleting them). I decided not to revert the edits yet because I noticed the content is extremely similar to another batch of IP edits by 131.172.34.1, and if this is a conflict dispute I'd like to let someone with more experience deal with this the right way. —Mu Mind (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and tentatively reverted since nobody has come to defend the edits or fix the citations. I didn't notice at first that some numbers in the text were referring to references. I re-added some parts that I could trace to a citation, and I managed to get all the references in as actual inline citations. Feel free to retry some of the other edits that were reverted, but please discuss first before making major changes to the perspective of the article, and try to add content rather than replacing or deleting so the article reflects all significant perspectives.—Mu Mind (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've partially reverted some new edits by 122.110.19.29 which are very similar to the aforementioned batch and have many of the same issues (mostly just re-adding some content that was deleted/replaced without stating a reason). Please discuss any changes of this scale on the talk page first. I also cleaned up some of the edits to conform to avoid extended capitalization. The citations added are very lengthy and would be much improved by using citation templates. The non-inline references should also be inlined so it's clear how they relate to the content of the article (I removed the manually-added numbering from them because it's not practical to maintain as references are added/removed). —Mu Mind (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Your information is out of date.

I am carolethecatlover, and a podiatrist. I am doing a research project on dyshidrosis. (Comparison of treatments for Chronic hand/foot eczema (Dyshidrosis, pomphylox) using Toctino, oral mycocides and the vitamin A protocol) I have re-edited the article to include all the most recent research. I have tried to cite it all, but as I have over 500 articles from peer reviewed journals, I cannot always find the journal article I learned a particular fact from.

It is certainly NOT hereditary! I have heard that before, but it has no basis in fact or research.

Toctino is the only effective drug on the market, part of my research was to find out if the naturopathic treatment worked as well, since I had dyshidrosis since I was 14, I tried it, planning to try Toctino after. (which was not yet on the market, I only knew it as RA cis 9, an experimental drug in 2005) I was cured by the naturopathic treatment in 90 days. I cannot post it as it contains almost toxic levels of vitamin A. It works on acne too. Amazing off label cure. (may I boast that I am a self taught expert on vitamin A? I have read so much about it, that my carrots talk to me. LOL)

Mu-mind, computer expert ... leave this alone. It is outside your brief. If it occurs on the feet, it is my brief.

There were in the article a lot of dubious treatments, which I was loathe to meddle with as I know a lot of people swear by them, for years, without getting cured.  !!! Some were painful and liable to exascerbate the condition. Lavander oil...no.... I left in Drobro and Potassium soaks as they may be effective in bacterial infections. There are a lot of irritants, but they are not the cause.

I also edited it to show the difference between the alliviation of the symptoms and the cure of the underlying condition. Even if you do the cure, toctino or vit A, they both take 90 days or thereabouts, so you have symptoms during that time.

My clinical study on myself and others, shows the symptoms of dyshidrosis retreat quickly to be replaced with dry flaky patches, but all resolve within 90 days. I will run a trial soon with a short period and lower doses of vit A. Leaky gut syndrome is resolved as well. Some lucky people are cured in 2 weeks with Nystatin, when they have candida overgrowth.

I have some reason to believe that in some cases the allegen 'on' switch is stuck on 'on'. Can't prove this. Looking for proof. No where to put an hypothesis in the article.

This is the one and only article I have worked on. I worked on it out of sheer anger at the amount of misinformation and downright WRONG diagnosis in the article. I am an expert in a very narrow field, and unlike some of the critics on this page, I see this condition, up close and personal, most days in my clinic.

Talk to me in person at carolethecatlover@yahoo.com.

I did not defend myself on this site TALK, because I did not know it existed.

When I get my study published, and it may take years, I will cite myself. Carolethecatlover. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 122.110.13.81 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally, and I'm not trying to make the article match my beliefs. You seem to know much more about the subject than I do, and you do seem to have facts worth adding that are currently missing from the article. That said, if you don't subscribe to Wikipedia's core content policies, you will be at odds with the entire Wikipedia community. I would like to help you get whatever references and facts you have at your disposal into this article while respecting Wikipedia's conventions and guidelines. I may have reverted some of your edits, but I can guarantee you that if you follow some simple rules of thumb, we'll get along just fine, and you'll be pleased with the results.

First, Verifiability: the content you contribute has to stand on its own. Nobody is going to look and say, "I'm not sure about this sentence in the article… is the user who wrote it a licensed podiatrist, or just some computer nerd?" (see WP:EXPERTISE). Your expertise will surely come across in what you're editing, so that people willsay, "whoever wrote this sentence must know what they're talking about", but only if you keep the emotions out of it. That leads into the next point: Neutral Point of View. There is no firm rule against editing Wikipedia angry, but if I can tell you're angry by reading your edits, that's a serious problem. I've already mentioned the article shouldn't have sentences typed in all caps, and it also shouldn't have bold and italics for emphasis (seeWP:BADEMPHASIS). And finally, Wikipedia is not a place to post original research, so anything you can't prove yet you will need to be careful in adding it to the article, meaning only if it's not controversial, only mention it briefly, and until you can prove otherwise treat it as no more certain than any other perspectives already in the article.

Now, I'm not going to get involved with this last batch of edits at least for a few days, because I'd like to give this some time to settle down and see if anyone else chimes in. In the meantime, I would really appreciate if you could look into the emphasis and citation issues I mentioned before, and also the "Diagnosis" heading that keeps getting broken with your edits. Please don't hesitate to ask here if you have any questions related to this article. (Also, just so you know, the reverts by XLinkBot and other bots have nothing to do with me, they're happening because your edit contains an email address, and as far as I know they will keep coming as long as the article contains an email address.) —Mu Mind (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mu Mind: What exactly are your qualifications to edit a medical article? How many patients with this condition have you treated? How many peer reviewed articles on chronic hand and foot eczema have you read? How many years have you studied the effects of vitamin A on skin conditions? Please cite your sources for stating that this condition (and it is not a disease, but a reaction to colonization/infection) has an unknown cause?

Why do you want people to have less than the best and most up to date information? What is wrong with the capitals? Those drugs listed are Rx by all too many doctors, and they are for the most part very dangerous immune modifiers, chemo for cancer drugs. Using such drugs for dyshidrosis is like using an atom bomb to kill a family of mice. This is a seriously misdiagnosed disease by doctors, even dermatologists, I am in regular conversation with a couple of dermos, and they agree that the average GP does not recognize it as anything other that a 'skin rash'.

It is such a pity that on Wikipedia, which is often the lay person's first line of research, such out of date information should be prophagated. The email address is yahoogroups who run the best site for information on this condition (the Uk site is the pits)Carole the catlover. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Carolethecatlover (talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My qualifications, and your opinions about my qualifications, do not matter on Wikipedia. What matters is the content and whether it is presented in such a way that it adheres to Wikipedia's official policy and unofficial guidelines. My opinion about those policies and guidelines doesn't matter. I've now pointed you to all of the relevant policies and guidelines I'm aware of; it's now up to you to follow or ignore them, and the Wikipedia community at large to enforce them or not enforce them. That is all. —Mu Mind (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mu Mind: If you want to keep the bad, just plain WRONG information up there. I am not good enough with computors to keep reverting it, and I have better things to do with my time. Healing people with it, for example. Just keep dyshidrosis@yahoogroups up, this is the most active site for this condition.

It is a real pity that computer expertise wins over real knowledge on wikipedia. Carole the catlover. — Preceding unsigned comment added byCarolethecatlover (talk •contribs) 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

As someone who suffers from dyshidrotic hand eczema I have done a significant amount of research and notice this article fails to mention a significant body of research linking some cases of vesicular eczema outbreaks, particularly of the hand, to a nickel allergy. I suggest two changes.

(1) Under Causes I propose changing "Allergic reactions of various kinds" to "Allergic reactions of various kinds, including allergies to nickel which is present in many foods and vitamins (i.e. oatmeal, canned foods)." citing the following.

Menne T, Borgan O, Green A. Nickel allergy and handdermatitis in a stratified sample of the Danish female39. Gawkrodger DJ, Vestey JP, Wong W-K, Buxton PK.Contact clinic survey of nickel-sensitive subjects. Contactpopulation: an epidemiological study including a statisticappendix. Acta Derm Venereol 1982; 62: 35–41.

Gawkrodger DJ, Vestey JP, Wong W-K, Buxton PK.Contact clinic survey of nickel-sensitive subjects. Contactpopulation: an epidemiological study including a statisticappendix. Acta Derm Venereol 1982; 62: 35–41.Dermatitis 1986; 14: 165–169

Christensen OB, Moller H. Nickel allergy and handitis, and hand and contact dermatitis in adolescents. TheOdense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseaseseczema. Contact Dermatitis 1975; 1: 129–135.

Menne T, Holm NV. Hand eczema in nickel-sensitiveand Dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2001; 144: 523–532.24. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersenfemale twins. Genetic predisposition and environmentalfactors. Contact Dermatitis 1983; 9: 289–296.

Flyholm MA, Nielson GD, Andersen A. Zeitschrift für Lebensmitteluntersuchung und -Forschung. 1984. p. 427-31.

(2) Under Treatment I propose adding a bullet with the following text "In the case of a nickel allergy or sensitivity a low nickel diet may lead to improvement. This includes avoiding high nickel foods like oatmeal and chocolate, canned foods (especially acidic foods like pineapple and tomato that leach metal from the can), and using vitamins the do not contain nickel. In this situation avoiding excessive exposure to environmental nickel may also be helpful, such as not using stainless steel pots and silverware." citing the following.

KAABER, K., VEIEN, N. K. and TJELL, J. C. (1978), Low nickel diet in the treatment of patients with chronic nickel dermatitis. British Journal of Dermatology, 98: 197–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1978.tb01622.x

Sciencenurse (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Done (in accord with WP:BRD).  Chzz  ►  07:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2