Talk:Pseudodementia/GA1

GA Review

I am failing this article for now because I feel it does not cover the subject in enough depth. Some specific suggestions:

Is this all there is for symptoms? How about a discrete section that describes symptoms found?
How about a causes section? This could explain the role of organic and psychological causes, as well as going into depth about specific illnesses. If you don't want a separate section for pathophysiology, the blood flow discussion could go here.
How about a classification section? PMID 6342420 says "there may be at least two categories of pseudodementia". This section could also explain differences from dementia.
How about a section for Diagnosis? What tests are used? Apparently (from a brief pubmed search) there are scales in use. In addition to the briefly mentioned neuroimaging techniques, are there any neuropsychological tests? If diagnostic criteria exist, they should be discussed here. If not, the article should explain this. Differential diagnosis should be discussed (PMID 3277890 and PMID 7858369 may help).
How about a prevention section?
How about a treatment or management section? This could discuss drugs, psychotherapy, lifestyle changes, etc. Management could involve things like make changes to daily activities to accommodate disabilities, etc.
...patients with cognitive symptoms consistent with dementia who improved with treatment - what kind of treatment?
How about a discussion of prognosis? Does the condition get better or deteriorate? What are the chances of recovery? Are there any complications?
How about an epidemiology section? What's the average age of onset? If you could find them, statistics about incidence in different age groups would be great. Is there a gender difference? Is it more common in some regions of the world than others?
How about a history and discovery section? The discussion of when the term was coined could go in here, as well as the controversy over the term, and evolution of treatments could also be discussed.
For the para beginning "Doubts about the classification and features of the syndrome...", I recommend establishing when this debate took place or started; was it right from the outset, or later?
The comprehensiveness issue is my main concern with the article, but I also find that there's little organization: one paragraph doesn't flow into the next in an intuitive way. For example, I think the second-to-last para discussing differences with dementia could go after the second paragraph that also discusses dementia or even be integrated into it.
The article doesn't give the reader any idea of how widely accepted this is by the medical or psychological communities. Is this a widely acknowledged diagnosis? Some epidemiology info would help.

I understand that there's limited literature on the topic but there are some reviews out there, so there's enough to write a more comprehensive article. Definitely let me know if you have anything to discuss or if you'd like further input. delldot talk 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]