Talk:Effects of long-term benzodiazepine use

To much info, bias and verbose

This article is bias from what I've read and heard about regarding benzodiazepine use. When used as directed in normal dose ranges (2mg - 5mg to 10mg of Diazepam) therapeutically for anxiety disorders muscle spasms disorders and sleep issues it hasn't definitively been proven to be as harmful to the mind and personality to patients as this article claims.

For instance if we are creating an article like this for benzodiazepines then why not also create a similar article for Adderall and Dexedrine use, an article for anti-depressant use (many articles going into detail about the long term structural brain damange SSRI's cause), an article for Gabapentin use (Gabapentin has been shown to be very harmful to the creation of brain synapses). These articles could also go through all the social ills and mental and physical problems these medications can cause. In my opinion the reason why we don't create said articles is because when used at the recommended dosages and timeframe these medications have been proven to alleviate major impairments upon the patient they were prescribed for. These drugs can and often do help the patient live a better quality of life. These patients are people already predisposed to social ills and poor physical and mental health and is part of the reason why they seek pharmaceutical help from these drugs. In other words correlation doesn't always prove causation so in the rare cases it does I believe it should be explained in more detail to make more sense. Anything can be a poison when used in excess. I'm not saying to remove all of the information however it seems redundant at times and bias in the reporting of how harmful benzodiazepines are. Many times it seems to say immediately afterwards that some other study found no such correlation. In short this article could use some clean up and summarizing.

Furthermore under the "Symptoms" section, sub-section "Brain damage evidence" there is a sentence that says...

"A publication has asked in 1981 if lorazepam is more toxic than diazepam.[69]"

I don't see the relevance of some publication from 1981 that asked about the toxicity of these two drugs. How this relates to brain damage evidence needs to either be explained in more detail or isn't detailed enough to warrant it being here. This is one of many examples of too much information without enough detailed evidence to back it up.

Kledsky (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Article should be renamed and rewritten. Should be separate articles, have smaller paragraphs, and not read so biased.

Regarding style of text, the paragraphs are just too long (eg: 3rd paragraph in intro). They make the article intimidating to read. This is compounded by the sections that consist of many paragraphs (eg: Section 1.3 Mental and physical health).

I think the length of the article is too long. Separate articles are called for.

These sentences:

Most of the research has been conducted in prescribed users of benzodiazepines; even less is known about the mortality risk of illicit benzodiazepine users.[13] The long-term use of benzodiazepines is controversial and has generated significant controversy within the medical profession. Views on the nature and severity of problems with long-term use of benzodiazepines differ from expert to expert and even from country to country; some experts even question whether there is any problem with the long-term use of benzodiazepines.[14]

seem rather key to the article but are embedded near the end of the giant 3rd introductory paragraph.

Despite the use of words phrases such as "possibility of adverse effects", the article seems to be very one-sided.

IMO, I think this article needs a seriously rewriting and, more important, it needs to be renamed as the current named seems to definitively state that these problems are real. I think "Controversy about the long-term effects of benzos" or something like that would be better.

Also, while I'm not in the medical field, there are lots of different types of benzos and I can't believe that they all have the same long-term affects. For example, clonazepam is typically taken daily and has a rather long half-life, ~1-3 days. Lorazepam, which has a relatively short half-life of ~2-4 hours, is frequently taken as needed (PRN) for panic attacks.

This page is part of three WikiProjects. I'm surprised that they haven't taken some action on this page. Even a standard Wiki disclaimer at the top that states that the article may be biased would be a win. Neil Smithline (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do it. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to demonstrate significant controversy about the long-term effects of benzodiazepines via sources. Reliable sources perhaps could be found that discuss the benefits or lack of harm from long-term use of benzodiazepines, then maybe these could be added to bring balance to the article. I don't think the article should be renamed. It is not necessary. The long-term effects of alcohol article discusses the benefits of low and moderate use of alcohol as well as the adverse effects of alcohol. No reason that this article can't do the same.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not an undertaking appropriate for me. I am a layman in medicine and benzos. That said, I am a natural sceptic and recognize the weak article when I read it. For all I know, it may turn out that everything in this article is correct but just poorly stated. As far as the page name, I'm good with the name it has. My problem with the name is that the article's tone seems to follow the page title.Neil Smithline (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to downgrade the rating of the page to C class as I agree that the article has significant issues. Hopefully someone will work a bit more on the article. I might when I have the time.--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro too long, contradictory and biased

Hi all, I agree that the intro is biased but not in the same way as a previous editor has suggested. It seems to me that the bulk of evidence shows the reality of the long term problems with benzos but there are a minority of differing opinions. However, these contrary opinions are used with weasel words in the intro as argumentative quips thus giving the contrary viewpoints too much weight and also creating confusion for the average reader. The intro does not provide an easily understandable summary of the subject. Freelion (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Article name change

An editor has proposed that the name of this article be changed from "Long-term effects of benzodiazepines" to "Effects of Long-term Benzodiazepine Use". I agree that this would be a better title what do others think? Freelion (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Anxiety Drugs Linked With Alzheimer's

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/anxiety-drugs-linked-alzheimers-n199501 According to a Canadian study, elderly people who used drugs called benzodiazepines for three months or longer had a 43 percent to 51 percent higher risk of later developing Alzheimer’s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.52.152 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that study is observational and no causation can therefore be inferred. Reverse causation is likely. Anxiety is one of the symptoms of Alzheimer's and tends to present up to five years before the disease is first diagnosed. Also, it is better not to reference a press source, with their inherent bias towards creating " news", but the study itself, which likely acknowledges limitations of observational studies.2003:42:2E0F:101A:129A:DDFF:FE5A:EE2C (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC) ;— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:42:2E0F:101A:129A:DDFF:FE5A:EE2C (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)