Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Argus Retinal Prosthesis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Argus Retinal Prosthesis's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: rejected by —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 05:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

Argus Retinal Prosthesis

[edit]
(
)

Created by Michaelmas1957 (talk). Self nominated at 09:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC).

  • As an outside comment of a possible issue, you may want to read WP:MEDRS. There was a fluff-up with a hook about an exoskeleton a few months back, and this may have similar issues as it is on the fence between a medical article and about a product. Chris857 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Mmmmm. I can see the issues now. Sources aren't too specialised as well. Articles do relate that product can only help with a specific condition, and only then improve slightly. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggest some improvements and I'll get to work on them. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Need a reviewer willing to work with nominator on what's needed for DYK on a medical article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps the nominator should try asking at this project; I'm told they are very helpful. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point Phil - I have mentioned this nomination there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Why is the title all caps? Other concerns include the fact that it is primarily supported by refs to the manufacturers website and the popular press. Also it is a little too promotional for my liking. For example the article states "The Argus II is primarily designed to treat sufferers of retinitis pigmentosa, a genetic ocular disease which affects approximately 1.5 million people worldwide" however the device is only approved for "adults with severe retinitis pigmentosa" by the FDA [1]. I am not sure what proportion have severe disease but it would be less than 1.5 million. There are WP:MEDMOS issues. Disagree that "Following years of testing" is proper encyclopdic tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting bit that is not mentioned is that the BEST vision achieved with the Argus 2 in the 32 pts studied was 20/1260, that is still very much blind with the WHO definition being 20/500 and the US being 20/200.Fernandes, RA; Diniz, B; Ribeiro, R; Humayun, M (Jun 25, 2012). "Artificial vision through neuronal stimulation". Neuroscience letters. 519 (2): 122–8. PMID 22342306.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we have any data on safety? Found it [2] 1 of 30 had to have the device removed. Severe adverse events occured in 36%. No AE in 7%. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs a new reviewer to go over the article; should also make sure Doc James's comments are addressed, especially the promotional concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • All the information Doc James provided has been included in the article, so in that respect there's no objection. However, the hook claims this is the first "functioning" artificial eye. As Doc James points out, the study reveals the Argus improves sight by only an incredibly slight margin. I'm no expert on these matters, but claiming it is "functional" when it does in fact do a lot of damage to many test subjects as well as increasing eyesight by only a tad for a few others... isn't the word "functional" giving an impression which is too positive with regards to its results? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not an expert either, but I'm uncomfortable with the hook as it stands. While it may technically be a "functioning eye" and therefore the hook is factually true - I'm concerned that the casual reader may assume that the capabilities are beyond the rather modest (and somewhat vague) claims r.e. sight improvement. They may think that they can purchase this "artificial eye" and that it will function like a real-eye. Despite the approval for commercial use and all, in my (definitely not expert) opinion, the quote about 1 out of 32 people reaching a still-technically blind status - with over a third of the group suffering serious adverse effects - and the fact that it is for use in specific cases only - isn't good enough, nor is the data-set large enough. Personally, I would be happier once results are in from the (up to 4000 in the U.S.) people who may be fitted with the device soon. Perhaps a hook that discusses the more technical aspects of how the eye works, or who it benefits, would be more appropriate? Hillbillyholiday talk 12:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a subject that can be neutrally discussed in the context of a necessarily brief DYK hook until it is a mature product at the very least. The article itself has exactly one study listed, which appears to be a meta-study or review of the literature, which itself raises serious concerns about the device. As my learned colleagues above have taken note, the phrasing "functioning artificial eye" is deceptive when the studies have not particularly vetted it. Calling it "functioning" in this context is akin to calling it "functional", which means it serves a purpose. Similarly, by focusing on the FDA approval, the hook is at least implying this is an endorsement in some way, which is decidedly not the case, particularly as the approval is limited to retinitis pigmentosa. Honestly, given the best outcome from trials was not particularly impressive, I can say with the utmost confidence that no evidence based medicine resource will grant its imprimatur to this device in the near future; it will remain experimental and investigational, likely for several product generations. Moreover, the phrasing "artificial eye" is deceptive both insofar as the device is a retinal implant; the phrase "artificial eye" strongly implies an eye-like object that performs the same tasks as a human eye. Finally, the use of all-caps in the article title is also concerning and as-yet not addressed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The article hasn't been worked on since April 5, despite all the criticism listed above. I think it will soon be time to close this nomination as unsuccesful, as unfortunate as it is.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 16:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Argus_Retinal_Prosthesis&oldid=864736929"