Talk:Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curiouspsychologist.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

note

I was wondering if anybody had any references for the types of treatments that are currently being used for Nueromyelitis Optica? Although the section on treatment suggests that there is currently no cure for the disease, I know that there are a number of treatments that are currently being carried out. I think that treatments such as steroids and other procedures should be included. JaredAllen69 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Devic's Disease support

Hello, My name is Tim Mulvihill and I run Devic's Support. Wikipedia used to have my group listed as an external link but now I notice we no longer appear. The only support site listed for Devic's is a UK based group. We are a US based support group registered with NORD (National Organization of Rare Disease's). We do not require registration to view our site, and unlike other support groups with do not solicit for funds. We are not a registered charity, just a web based support group. We are recognized as a resource by The Transverse Myelitis Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna and many others. We have more than 200 members world wide, with physicians that monitor our posts. Please consider adding us to your page on Devic's Disease. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Devics-support

Thank you, Timothy Mulvihill Keithtim (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed your address. Wikipedia is not an address book. Our external links policy is quite specific about forums and other resources, and I'm not sure if we should make an exception, given that there are numerous other sources of information available. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you feel it should be removed? I also don't understand how you can believe that there are that many available sources of information available? We had a link on Wikipedia for a year or more until it was recently removed. We are not a social organization and we do not require people to register to view our posts. We are also recognized, as I previously stated, by many Medical sites as a resource. I can't help but find it interesting that you have a link to a UK based Support group, but will not allow a link to ours? Being a Doctor in the UK, I am sure you are aware that most of the information about Devic's comes from the US. Wikipedia is often the first place a person can find information regarding this disease, and it does not seem fair Wikipedia will only direct support to a UK based support group. Please reconsider your decision. Thank you, Timothy Mulvihill Keithtim (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A similar discussion with Keepandbear (talk · contribs) on my talkpage has gone around in circles about the suitability of newsgroups on an encyclopedia webpage. I am working on the basis of this guidelines (no. 11). I cannot find the "UK based group" Keithtim is referring to - I would imagine that link was also deleted.

Wikipedia is not a web directory. When selecting external links, the audience is the general readership. Inasmuch, one would choose professional organisations or larger patients' representative groups over loose online discussion fora. I am going to ask other contributors at WikiProject "medicine" to offer their opinion here. Hopefully something resembing consensus will emerge at the end. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no "larger patients' representative groups" for Devics. This is it. There's maybe a few hundred diagnosed in the US, 1000 in the world. Doctors by & large don't know about it, ER staffs don't know about it, there's no telethons, as far as I know there's no CFC checkoff. Web pages are good resources but don't explain things in a way that normal people can always understand. Our group can mean the difference between people getting the treatment they need or not. As I said elsewhere, it is not a social group, there is no benefit to us from listing this, it is a way to get critical information to people suffering from a life threatening disease. It is one little line in a links section. Let it be!! Keepandbear (talk · contribs)

JFW has my full support on this. Wikipedia has no responsibility to patients, if it did, our medical articles would be full of regional support group links. I suggest you (1) add any missing "critical information" to the article, keeping in mind our content policies, and (2) find other websites (such as charities and organisations whose job it is to list support groups) to take your link. The pages at The Walton Centre website (linked) look rather good and have a section where your group could be linked from. I suggest you email the author/webmasters. Colin°^Talk 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are making a straw man argument. It is an information resource, the only one of its kind, it is not a regional or even national group (we have had patients in Europe, at least).

Sorry, guys. JFW is right. In the final analysis, it just doesn't much matter how helpful your chat room is, or that you think patients will never find your group without a Wikipedia link, or how cool it would be for my favorite rare-disease chat board to be listed on Wikipedia. What matters is that Wikipedia's policies specifically exclude links to groups like yours. The link was a clear violation of the policy.

If you don't like this policy, then you need to head over to the policy group and explain to them that in your opinion, external links to patient support/disease discussion groups should be allowed. If you convince them to change the policy, then come back here and tell us, and you'll get no flack from us. Until then, the link is disallowed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to note this line from WP:MEDMOS#Audience while I had it handy, because I expect this issue to come up again. An example of writing for the wrong reader is:

My daughter is getting tested for Devic's NMO. I am glad I found there is a support group from Wikipedia. Connienp (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)connienp

• You add "helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities.

So in addition to violating the encyclopedia-wide WP:EL, adding links to patient chat rooms is specifically called out as inappropriate for medical articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to watch closely

As a previous contribution says:

The blood-brain barrier is weakened in Devic's disease, but it is currently unknown how the NMO-IgG immune response leads to demyelination. Current research points to an accumulation of glutamate due to the NMO-IGg attack. As User:Jfdwolff points out, the given reference is a brief report that requires confirmation or a secondary source, but at the same time, is the best explanation we have at this point. Therefore, I move it here until a confirmation or refutal is found.--Juansempere (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

References

new website www.nmouk.nhs.uk

Dear Sir

Neuromyelitis optica (NMO or Devics disease) is a condition affecting the optic nerve causing blindness and poor vision AND the spinal cord causing paralysis of limbs We have recently designed a website www.nmouk.nhs.uk and wondered if you would add this to your list of conditions as a link/resource

Thankyou

Kerry

Kerry Mutch Neuromyelitis Optica Nurse Specialist

194.176.105.148 (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kerry, because your site contains detailed information that would be outside the scope of what even a good article on NMO would be like on WP, I am tentatively adding a link to your resource and will await feedback from other editors. Thank you for letting us know, --PaulWicks (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS

There is obviously quite a literature on NMO coming through currently, and there is a huge temptation to make this article as cutting edge as possible. However, one must be careful not to fall prey to WP:RECENTISM and I would strongly recommend that the references be pared back and limited to WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuromyelitis optica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925095337/http://www.myelitis.org/rnds2006/Wingerchuk_NMO_Rare%20Neuroimm_062406_final.pdf to http://www.myelitis.org/rnds2006/Wingerchuk_NMO_Rare%20Neuroimm_062406_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New Edits Discussion

Hello,

I am going to be making some edits to the Neuromyelitis Optica wikipedia page over the next several days. I would like to open a discussion here for any opinions my fellow wikipedians have about the edits and changes I make to the page. Please press enter and continue the discussion under this heading and I will be checking back often for any changes or advice. Thank you very much! Curiouspsychologist (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this @Curiouspsychologist:. It is great to have students helping to improve the readability and evidence shared in these articles. Please be sure to include a high quality secondary source as per WP:MEDRS following every sentence you add to medical content on Wikipedia and also consult the medical manual of style WP:MEDMOS for suggestions regarding appropriate headings and sub headings for each article type. Also, if you need any help, reach out on the talk page. Many Wikipedians would be happy to help! Thank you again. JenOttawa (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposing page move, with subsequent merge

I'm wanting to move this page from "Neuromyelitis optica" to Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders"

From 2015 diagnostic guidelines

NMO would be subsumed into the single descriptive term NMOSD because the clinical behavior, immunopathogenesis, and treatment of patients who have NMOSD are not demonstrably different than for those with NMO and patients with incomplete forms of NMO frequently later fulfill NMO criteria.

After this, I propose merging Anti-AQP4 disease with this article, since it also describes diseases of the same diagnostic criteria, pathogenesis, and treatment (it is simply a subset of NMOSD).

Any thoughts or objections? Lukelahood (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

References

NMO vs NMOSD?

this article is titled NMOSD, yet the article includes many mentions of NMO.

NMO is just one expression of the antibody mechanism causing NMOSD?

Do we need a separate article on NMO? Asto77 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the explanation that Lukelahood gave when moving the page a couple of years ago, I don't think a separate article was expected (at that point in time). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

well imho this article is a real mess. it's like an article on road vehicles that is littered with content specifically about cars alone. Asto77 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I've worked on this page. The article is a work in progress. Just going off of memory, part of the issue may be that the definition of this disease essentially changed when anti-aqp4 was discovered to be pathogenic and then used to define the disease. Multiple revisions of diagnostic criteria were used before that, which probably encapsulated slightly different patient populations.

Although NMO and NMOSD can technically have different definitions, to the average reader it probably isn't significant. Although yes, there is room for improvement. Lukelahood (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)