Talk:Lymphocytic pleocytosis

Untitled

The goal of this page is to define Lymphocytic pleocytosis and give an overview of how it is related to specific diseases and neurological symptoms.Lambchop22 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Reviews

Review 1

I think the intro paragraph could have a little bit more of an overview of the topic. I feel that a person should be able to read this section and have a pretty good idea about what all the other sections are going to talk about. I think my main concern with it is that I don't end up knowing how the increase in lymphocyte count affects the body. So first suggestion revisit the intro. Second, in the symptoms section, you just talk about the lymphocyte counts and then briefly mention headaches and neurological deficits. What are some examples of neurological deficits? It may seem repetitive, but include more of the symptoms that you see from the diseases that you discuss. Third, you can expand the diagnosis a bit by talking about the other scans used to detect the disease where pleocytosis occurs. Is there a general age at which pleocytosis is detected? Is there any other indications that can lead to diagnosis? Next suggestion, can you include a treatment section? I know that you include a brief sentence about treatment in each disease, but every time I am left wondering if that treatment just affects the disease or the actual pleocytosis. You mention the drugs that are used as treatment, however, I don't understand what its actually doing. What is the role of lymphocytic pleocytosis in these diseases? Finally, I would just go back through and make sure you've got commas in all the right places. Read your article out loud cause there are a few sentences that just roll off a little funny. Otherwise, I think you did a good job putting important information in. Definitely consider the other reviews below because I believe after a few edits, you'll have a really good article! Good luck! MekMU (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, we took all your suggestions into consideration and tried to improve the article accordingly. We added more information to the header section to give a clearer overview of the topic. The problem with including how the increase in lymphocyte count effects the body is that the effects are so numerous and differ from disease to disease. We give more information on this in the symptoms section. In this section we also expanded on neurological deficits that accompany high lymphocyte counts. We combined the information in the diagnosis section with the history section and plan on expanding on the techniques used in diagnosis as a part of the history section. We are in the process of adding a treatment section that talks about the different treatments we outlined in the disease section and if we can find more information on the drugs used and how they function, we will include this in the treatment section. Finally, we took your advice on improving the grammar and improved the style as well. Thanks again for your feedback it was helpful! --Lambchop22 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 2

Overall, the article is well written with information that may be valuable for readers to gain information. There are some improvements that I think that can be easily fixed. First, the introduction has little information in general and should put more information so readers can understand what they are gaining from this article. Also, I am not 100% sure if increases in lymphocyte sentence is necessary. If you guys think it is, I may suggest that maybe explaining why it maybe worth knowing. In the symptoms section, overall, it is well written but there is one that can be improved. When writing about “patients suffering from pseudomigranes…” I would suggest explaining what “pseudomigranes” is because most readers would not know this term. Also, explain about the concentrations about the studies and what they tell readers what or how this affects a person with this symptom or disease. The causes section is very good in explaining how it is either contracted and alternatives into the spread of the illness. In the diagnosis section, I believe that this section could be expanded more if the editors are able to retrieve more information. This section can also expand by talking about possibly the age groups that can be infected, how can you tell if a person is infected, or any other alternatives in detecting this illness/disease. In the diseases section, this is well written but I would agree with the first reviewer, how do the drugs work in each of the diseases and the role in lymphocytic pleocytosis in each of the diseases? In the history section, if possible, include to who discovered lymphocytic pleocytosis and how was it discovered. All in all, this is a great article but I would suggest in fixing the recommended improvements before this goes live! lusanity1 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on our article! We did expand our introduction to incorporate more from the following article and we thought that the lymphocyte sentence was necessary to give a little background to the readers. We were not able to wikilink psuedomigraine because it does not have a page on Wikipedia however we are working on an explaining what it is. We did not expand on the concentrations of the studies because we thought that that would be getting too much into the specific studies. We expanded both of our diagnosis and history but it is still limited because lymphocytic pleocytosis is more of symptom of diseases. We are currently working on how the drugs work in each of the diseases and the role of the lymphocytic pleocytosis in each of the diseases. We are limited on our resources so many of the ideas we are unable to expand especially on who discovered it. Thank you again for reading our article! Lokazaki0326 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 3

This is a well written in general, it was an easy read. Some of the most prevalent improvements I think would be some section reorganization and expansion. The header section seems short and could use more summary of the topics in the article. Also, it seems strange to have the history section so far down when history is most useful as preliminary information for the reader. I would me it higher up. There are terms within the page that could use a definition or wikilink, for example "pseudomigranes" and "Intravenous acyclovir". Also I looked at the source "Venkatesan, Arun; Benavides, David (February 2015). "Autoimmune Encephalitis and Its Relation to Infection .". Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 15 (3)". This does seem to be tertiary literature but I don't know if it discusses lymphocytic pleocytosis enough. It seems to only have loosely associated it with encephalitis so this may not be the best source to use to support the encephalitis sub-section. My final critique is that the diagnosis section is only one sentence and has no citation. Is there any source to substantiate this info? Overall a good article. Medstudentleigh (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We moved the history section higher up because we agreed that it would make more sense there.Unfortunately, we could not use a wikilink for pseudomigraine as a page on this topic does not exist. However, we did add a few more wikilinks to ease the viewer's reading. In addition, because lymphocytic pleocytosis is a symptoms, our breath and depth of information was rather limited. We ended up adding a treatment section as well. Thank you again for your suggestions! CateNicole (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 4

The article was well written and up to a collegiate level but there are a few things that can be improved. The “disease” section seems a bit disconnected from the other sections as if two people wrote them separately. It would be better if the sections flowed better making it seem like one author wrote the article. The lead article is a bit short and can contain some more general information about the topic. The first half of the “symptoms” section seem like it fits more in the “causes” section so it might be best to move around the info and add more to the symptoms section. The first sentence of the “causes” section can be worded better. The “diseases” section is well written. I think the “history” section should be moved above the “symptoms” section just to make the order flow better. The references at the bottom and the in-text citations were written in the proper format. Overall the article stays on the topic and also produces more information about other topics. It would be nice if you found an image that connects with the information. The reference "Venkatesan, Arun; Benavides, David (February 2015). "Autoimmune Encephalitis and Its Relation to Infection .". Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 15 (3): 1–11." is a legitimate paper that is properly cited and supports autoimmune encephalitis and the background information presented in the article. You used the necessary information to support the basics that the article needed but also didn’t include any unnecessary information that would distract the reader from the main topic at hand. 9635wilmota (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! We rewrote the disease section in order to make it better fit the rest of the article and expanded the introduction as you suggested. We also moved the history section and added an image. However, we respectfully disagreed with your suggestion that we move the first sentence of the symptoms section to causes due to the fact that pleocytosis is characterized by a rise in lymphocyte levels and not caused by it. Thus, we feel that the first sentence accurately describes a symptom. Thanks again! Marq808 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Reviews

Review 1

This is a really nice expansion to the article. You seem to have added a lot of relevant information, which will allow the reader to have a better understanding about what Lymphocytic pleocytosis is, what is causes, etc. However, I do have a few suggestions in order to further improve your article. First, it may make more sense to put the history section at the top rather that at the end. This just seems to be a more logical flow for the article. Additionally, it may be helpful to explain what a normal lymphocyte count is for a better understanding of how much of an increase is needed to be considered abnormal. This may give the reader a better understanding of what those numbers actually mean. Moreover, you state that most patients with diseases featuring Lymphocytic pleocytosis exhibit headache and neurological deficits. It would be helpful if you expanded on what these deficits may include so the reader has a better understanding of what that means.

Additionally, you did a nice job of explaining several of the disease states that are often associated with Lymphocytic pleocytosis, how they were treated, etc, but the sections on “Causes” and “Diagnosis” are very brief. In the section on “Diseases” you mention in several of them the use of CT scans, MRI, EKG, etc. It may be helpful to explain in the “Diagnosis” section what these tests are for and what they can show in relation to Lymphocytic pleocytosis. It may also be helpful to explain that Lymphocytic pleocytosis is often diagnosed in association with diagnosis of another disease in the “Diagnosis” section as you say in the introduction that it is a response to infection with a neurological disease. So, although you explain several of these diseases in the “Disease” section, it may be useful to further explain either in the “Cause” or “Diagnosis” section if Lymphocytic pleocytosis develops immediately upon infection, if it is delayed, or even if it always occurs in response to neurological disease. In general, it just seems that there could be some expansion in these two section. Maybe you could even consider adding a section on risk factors, prevalence, who is more likely to get it, etc.

Lastly, although you mention treatments in relation to each of the specific diseases, it may be helpful to have a generalized treatment section for the common treatments of Lymphocytic pleocytosis, so readers can understand what treatment includes when Lymphocytic pleocytosis is present but a disease other than the ones you mentioned is present. You could also explain some of the research behind treatment, success rate, etc.

Otherwise, the article looks very nice. You have a lot of information and a really good article foundation. It just seems that you might be able to expand on certain sections with more information or further explanation just to give a clearer overall understanding to the reader. 7753spoom (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We really appreciate it. We started by moving the history section up. In addition, we are currently discussing adding a treatments section instead of simply discussing the treatments in each disease section. We combined the diagnosis and history sections because we agreed that they were repetitive and brief. Unfortunately, because lyphocytic pleocytosis is a symptom, our information was somewhat limited. We are continuing to expand as much as possible, but due to these limitations, we can only expand so much. Thank you again for your comments and suggestions. Your feedback is very helpful. CateNicole (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 2

Great article. I would encourage pictures and links to be added to support some of the topics. For example, I do not know what a pseudomigraine is, so linking that word to another wikipedia article would be useful and would help support the article. Providing pictures would also help those who do not have a vast biological background. For example, adding a picture of a lymphocyte might prove to clarify what is being talked about. Jamesbond35 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 3

This article is well written with a common style throughout the whole thing, which is good. My main concern is there may be more information to include, which would make it a little longer for some of the sections. The symptoms section is clear and well-written; however, you may want to include a normal lymphocyte count as a reference when you state what the count is for the mild case. For the causes, this section is clear and well written. Maybe more information can be found to further add to this section. The diagnosis section is a short section, I would expand upon it a little. Not sure where you would go, but I would think there is a little more information in terms of diagnosis. Another thought, maybe there is information on who is affected more by this disease (older versus younger populations, males versus females), this might be able to be included somewhere as a nice reference. This is not necessary, it was just a thought. The disease section is well written, it gives good examples and it goes into enough detail for understanding without taking away from what would be written in the actual Wikipedia page for that disease. Overall, it is a well written article. 1415jacobsx (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 4

This article is written very clearly and concisely. The language used is not too technical, so the article flows well and is not difficult to read from beginning to end. However, some words do appear to be in need of a hyperlink. Adding a hyperlink to them will make the article even more informative and much more useful to future readers. A more detailed diagnosis section would also be nice to see. The hyperlink added in the section obviously adds a plethora of detail, but a few sentences defining the procedure would be better. With just the one sentence, the diagnosis section looks choppy and out of place. Because there is a lot of information about lumbar punctures, I would suggest adding some information about the procedure. Simply how it is done, how often, etc. Also, adding pictures to each section of the page would tie the sections even more closer together. The diseases section is extremely informative. I like the layout and how each separate disease has its own section within the section of diseases. Overall though, the page is neat and clean and informative to read, good job! MadelineJuliette (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 5

Well done overall, but a few notes. It seems like it would make more sense to have the history section aat the beginning of the article (that seems to be more standard in Wikipedia articles). Additionally, there are some terminological inconsistencies, such as using cerebrospinal fluid (into) vs cerebral spinal fluid (causes). Also in the intro it is stated that it is an autoimmune response in response to an infection, which is logically inconsistent, so I would try to clarify that. I also think it could be helpful to have an overview of the immune system/WBCs function.

AndersonKM (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 6

Great article! I thought that the information was played out nicely in the introduction and explained completely in later sections of the article. The disease section was very relative to the topic and did not include erroneous information just to fill space. I do agree that giving a standard baseline for the concentrations in the body, to give better perspective to the extent of the condition. Bscheidt (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 7 (Madelaine Martin)

I think that for the most part, the information present is pretty good. I thought that there were some edits to be made in terms of content- why not add more to the symptoms and diagnosis section? Only having a few sentences makes the whole article appear to only be about the diseases section. That being said, I like how you guys didn't include "unnecessary information"; it is concise and I think the reader would appreciate that- just be careful that the article isn't sparse. I thought that instead on linking so many stuff in the quick into section you could speak to what a lymphocyte is or CSF is... may be better for the unknowing reader to get an idea of that from the beginning vs having to click on another link. Just a thought though. Also, I liked the informative nature of the diseases section but there are some areas that could be expanded upon from here, just like the primary reviewer said; try and have a follow through from symptoms to diagnosis to disease. All in all great 1st draft. Mady mads (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 8

I think the authors did a good job presenting information concisely. However, the introduction is very, very concise. I feel like you could expand a bit more upon the topic. Perhaps you could explain what a lymphocyte actually is. You could also list some diseases in which it is an autoimmune response. You could explain, in very brief terms, what the implications of increased cerebrospinal protein concentrations are.

In the symptoms section, it may be helpful to list normal lymphocyte counts. This would allow readers to see the magnitude of change in lymphocytic pleocytosis. You may also explain what a pseudomigraine is.

In the diagnosis section, you should expand on what a lumbar puncture is and how it helps assess lymphocytic pleocytosis. Perhaps you could also combine the history and diagnosis sections. I feel as if they discuss similar information, and both are relatively short on their own.

In the disease section, you should not reference specific study results, but instead give a general overview of the disease and how it affects individuals. I think this is done well in the Susac’s syndrome and autoimmune encephalitis sections! Overall, nice work! LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible References To Be Used:

1. Mokri, Bahram. (2013).Spontaneous Low Pressure, Low CSF Volume Headaches: Spontaneous CSF Leaks. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 1034-053. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from PubMed
2. Filina, T., K. N. Feja, and R. W. Tolan. (2013). An Adolescent With Pseudomigraine, Transient Headache, Neurological Deficits, and Lymphocytic Pleocytosis (HaNDL Syndrome): Case Report and Review of the Literature. Clinical Pediatrics, 496-502. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from PubMed
3. Pascual, Julio, and Natalia Valle. (2003).Pseudomigraine with Lymphocytic Pleocytosis. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 224-28. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from PubMed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokazaki0326 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)