Talk:Excessive daytime sleepiness

Renaming article

I believe the correct medical term is "Excessive daytime somnolence". Consider having "Excessive daytime sleepiness" redirect there instead of vice versa. Matthewmazurek (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism

Hi Wikipedians,

It is with some skepticism that I see this "new" diagnosis get such a full treatment. A clue might be that the patentholders (extended patent rights) of Modafinil, and the newer Armodafinil, are trying to promote the disorder of "Excessive Daytime Sleepiness" as a recognized syndrome that insurance will cover (and hence pay patent-monopolized amounts for the drugs that treat it). Just sayin'. Anyone want to traceroute the authors of this page? (If you traceroute me you'll just find someone's home DSL line in Seattle, FYI). (Unsigned comment by anonymous 216.231.35.45, 07:53, 10 December 2008)

NEW COMMENT - in regards to the above, I have been diagnosed with Hypersomnia EDS, and have suffered from it my entire life. I was properly diagnosed in 2005. Yes, modafinil is one of the medications I'm currently on to treat it, but this is *NOT* a fake illness. It's very real, and very damaging. I don't mind making myself available for confirmation of that either. Not a shill for any patent holder - hypersomnia eds SUCKS. It impacts just about every area of my life, and having tried just about everything to cope with it, trying to find the source of it...trying to be reasonable about your remarks and not fly off the handle, it's insulting. I do not doubt that the patent holders have a vested interest in getting insurance companies to pay for it - in fact I'm hassled just about every time I try to get a refill. If you want personal experiences, I can point you to lots of others that suffer from it. Look up hypersomnia eds on Facebook. We exist. :( :—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.231.66.99 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The condition is legitimate, but the effectiveness of Modafinil is not really proven. It is given a lot of publicity and most of the trials out there are from the companies themselves. I am going to replace some of the content with evidence from systematic reviews that say the benefit is not clear/not proven yet.

This article has a serious lack of references.

Manu Mathew (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the original assertions made by anonymous from 216.231.35.45 on 10 December 2008. As the edit history shows, this wikipedia page was nothing more than a single-line stub until I significantly contributed towards it in October of 2007. As for a basis, I'm not conspiring with patentholders or other financial interests. My contributions were solely founded upon a personal desire to learn more (and begin understanding how to teach others) about a condition that, at the time, I had JUST been diagnosed with.

--Erth64net (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

More skepticism

EDS does exist, at least as a symptom, and it is referred to in hundreds of journal articles. So I believe it warrants an article here. However, the long essay on Coping is virtually unreferenced and not written in an encyclopedic style. It needs work. - Hordaland (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

image replaced

i've replaced it because the others don't look like medical cases Nascar dakar 2006 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've deleted your cute 1400px image and left a vandalism notice on your talk page. - Hordaland (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(c) statement for Johns' "Epsworth Sleepiness Scale"

If Johns has trademarked the term "Epsworth Sleepiness Scale", then someone please find a reliable source that states that and then look up a wikipedia guideline for trademarks (shouldn't be hard to find). Otherwise, i find it rather dubious to claim that the term itself could be copyrighted. You can't copyright just three words, especially since in this case, the most notable term to refer to the topic is presumably using the name itself. The fact that the text of the questionnaire itself is copyrighted is a different issue, and is (presumably) uncontroversial. But it doesn't need to be stated in the wikipedia text, unless it's especially notable. Johns does seem to make a big issue of it on his web page, but if it's really notable, then the notable fact would be something like "Murray Johns has frequently expressed concern regarding reproductions of the exact text of his questionnaire, that violate his copyright. He sent cease-and-desist orders to researchers at the Psychology Department of Woop Woop University in 200x and alleged that they had used his text. He has also claimed that the scale itself, as a empirical scientific method, is copyrighted." However, unless we have some reliable sources, i suggest that we assume that this is a rather un-notable fact. Boud (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If the ESS questionnaire text is really copyrighted as Johns claims, then this link in the text looks like a link to a copyright violation, unless user Dement has specifically got permission from Johns to reproduce the text. Just because the webpage is at Stanford Uni and the author has a tag claiming some ethical code about webpage content doesn't meant that the page is a legal copy of the original. i've replaced the Stanford Uni copy link by a link to Johns' copy, which seems more reasonable anyway. A different question is whether that sentence is appropriate to the article. Wikipedia is meant to encyclopedically document knowledge, not recommend to people how to apply that knowledge. Boud (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the ESS info some and added the older tool, MSLT. There's another tool where one tries to stay awake for 20 minutes or more rather than tries to take a nap. Maybe I'll find and add that, too. - Hordaland (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Stimulants: Tweak "addictive properties" comment and cut Cylert?

"There is declining usage of other drugs ... as these psychostimulants have several adverse effects and addictive properties."

It would be more accurate to replace "addictive properties" with "abuse potential" or "high potential for abuse and diversion". Used for narcolepsy or ADHD, addiction is rare. It is illicit or diverted stimulants that create the two "addiction-esque" problems: 1. abuse/dependence and 2. as performance enhancers typically by students. And let's remember that the new medications: modafinil, Armodafinil, and Xyrem (sodium oxybate) aka GHB are also controlled substances with abuse potential.

One of the listed stimulants, Cylert (pemoline) is no longer available in the US due to risk of hepatic toxicity. Is it still in use elsewhere? Should we cut Cylert from the listed stimulants? (Further, while pemoline increased performance, it was not effective in reversing sleepiness, as other stimulants were, and it was used primarily in ADHD.)

Comments, please.

Box73 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest using the term "dependence" instead of "addictive" unless there is documentation that sleepiness causes people to seek out medication illegally.

David Hughes

71.251.141.211 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I replaced "addictive" but know nothing about Cylert (pemoline). --Hordaland (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)