User talk:Medicinechief
Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit]
|
GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
References
[edit]Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with your addition
[edit]One being that it is not properly formatted. Thus will move it here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The numbers for the references do not link to anything. Also we do not typically use Med Hypothese as a reference as what is published in it is simply that hypothesis. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- We should be using secondary sources from the last 5 years. Most of these are fairly old. The other concern is many of them are primary sources rather than secondary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The numbers for the references do not link to anything. Also we do not typically use Med Hypothese as a reference as what is published in it is simply that hypothesis. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Text in question
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
In 2002, Sota Omoigui published a new theory of pain in his book titled: The Biochemical Origin of Pain. [1]. This theory stated that: The origin of all Pain is inflammation and the inflammatory response. Mediators of inflammation include cytokines, neuropeptides, growth factors, transcription factors, Histamine, Serotonin/5HT, arachidonic acid metabolites,kinins, nitric oxide, oxygen radicals and neurotransmitters. Activation of pain receptors, transmission and modulation of pain signals, neuro plasticity and central sensitization are all one continuum of inflammation and the inflammatory response. Irrespective of the type of pain whether it is acute or chronic pain, peripheral or central pain, nociceptive or neuropathic pain, the underlying origin is inflammation and the inflammatory response. Irrespective of the characteristic of the pain, whether it is sharp, dull, aching, burning, stabbing, numbing or tingling, all pain arise from inflammation and the inflammatory response. Independent Review of the Inflammation Response Theory Page 18 in a Book Publication from Department of Pharmacology, Leiden /Amsterdam Center for Drug Research (LACDR), Faculty of Science, Leiden University and published by the Center for Drug Research, STATES: “we strongly support the hypothesis proposed by OmoiGui, which states that the origin of all pain is inflammation and inflammatory response (5;6).” [2].[3]. Soft tissue or nerve injury causes excitation of sensory nerve fibers.Antidromic firing of these sensory nerves causes release of the inflammatory mediators PG, Cytokines IL-1 beta, TNF alpha, 5 hydroxytryptamine, leukotrienes, and bradykinins. Mediators stimulate the release of other neuropeptides including CGRP, substance P, and cholecytokinin. Neuropeptides induce vasodilation, increase vascular permeability, attract other immune cells such as T helper cells and excite surrounding sensory nerve fibers -- neurogenic inflammation. Peripheral nociceptive impulses travel via A delta and C fibers to synapse in the lamina II and lamina V of the spinal cord. C fibers also synapse in Lamina I of the spinal cord. 2nd order neurons in Lamina I, respond to impulses from the C fibers. Wide dynamic range(WDR) neurons in Lamina V can be activated to produce wind-up. Neuropeptides glutamate and aspartate mediate fast synaptic transmission in lamina V. The neuropeptides bind and activate amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-proprionic acid (AMPA) and Kainate (KAR) receptors that regulate Na+ and K+ ion influx. Glutamate and aspartate bind to NMDA receptors. Activated AMPA receptors produce a depolarization that dislodges a magnesium plug from the ion channel of the NMDA receptor. This initiates the entry of calcium ions into the neuron. Intracellular calcium accumulates. A chain of neurochemical and neurophysiologic changes leads to the rapid and independent firing of spinal neurons without stimulation. This results in magnification of all nerve traffic and pain stimuli that arrive in the spinal cord from the periphery. Activation of motor nerves results in excessive muscle tension. More inflammatory mediators are released, generating more nerve traffic and increased muscle spasm. Constant C-fiber nerve stimulation to the spinal cord results in even more release of inflammatory mediators but this time within the spinal cord.The origin of all pain is from inflammation and the inflammatory response. TNF-alpha and Interleukin 1-beta play an important role in rheumatoid arthritis by mediating cytokines that cause inflammation and joint destruction. TNF-alpha, Interleukin 1-beta and Substance P are elevated in the joint fluids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis[4] [5][6][7]. These inflammatory mediators are also elevated in the joint fluid in patients with osteoarthritis albeit to a far less extent. Along with mechanical factors, growth factors and cytokines such as TGF beta 1, IL-1 alpha, IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha may be involved in the formation and growth of osteophytes, since these molecules can induce growth and differentiation of mesenchymal cells. The incidence and size of osteophytes may be decreased by inhibition of direct or indirect effects of these cytokines and growth factors on osteoid deposition in treated animals Cite error: A Medicinechief (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Medicinechief. James asked me to discuss this with you. He and I, along with many other volunteers, review recent changes to Wikipedia medical articles to check that they conform to our policies and guidelines. As an encyclopedia edited by anonymous volunteers, we are very tightly constrained as to what we can include.
Wikipedia's medical content is, basically, the presentation of the current scholarly consensus on a topic. Where there is significant scholarly disagreement on a point, we present that, giving due weight to all relevant views, according to their degree of acceptance. We reflect the strength of support for a position, where that is made clear in a scholarly overview of the topic.
We derive this (scholarly consensus, different views, and due weight) from expert reviews of the topic published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, or similar expert overviews. We call such sources "secondary" sources. For a clear exposition of this method, and a description of ideal sources for this approach, see WP:MEDRS.
Until the theory has been extensively reviewed in a high impact peer-reviewed journal, graduate level textbook or similar independent dedicated review, we can't include it. Once the theory has been addressed extensively in such a source, please don't hesitate to bring it to the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Anthony, This theory has been extensively reviewed and cited in numerous articles. I am trying to add more refences. For the review, please refer to Page 18 in ARTICLE from Department of Pharmacology, Leiden /Amsterdam Center for Drug Research (LACDR), Faculty of Science, Leiden University STATES: “we strongly support the hypothesis proposed by OmoiGui, which states that the origin of all pain is inflammation and inflammatory response (5;6).” [1].
- Medicinechief (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- That chapter you point me to is not a strong enough source to support us covering the theory in Pain. It is described as a thesis, so may be student work, and does not appear to have been published by a scholarly publisher. The kind of source that would support its inclusion would be a recent scholarly review in a relevant specialist, highly-regarded, peer-reviewed journal (Pain, Journal of Pain, Neuroscience, etc.) or a textbook or monograph published by a highly-regarded scholarly press (OUP, Elsivier, etc.), where the review is dedicated to the theory alone or discusses it extensively and puts it in context against other current theories, and is written by author/s not connected with the author/s of the theory.
- This is no criticism at all of the theory, I'm just explaining how this encyclopedia works. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) describes the kind of sources we insist on for biomedical content, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Fringe theories describe how we deal with new theories and how we apportion weight.
- If, once you've familiarised yourself with those important Wikipedia guidelines, you still believe the theory warrants coverage in Pain or another Wikipedia article, ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. That is a forum where volunteers discuss biomedical content on Wikipedia.
- On another but related matter; we can devote very little space to pain theory in the main article Pain because it is an overview and needs to at least touch on many aspects of that broad topic. I think an article called Pain theory, giving a detailed description of the history and current state of scientific conceptions of pain is badly needed. (We do have History of pain theory but that has a number of shortcomings.) If you, or anyone you know, are interested in taking that on, I would be very willing to help it fit Wikipedia style and content policies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Anthony....The Leiden University publication is a book published by a scholarly publisher: The Center for Drug Research. You may see the link to the book at: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/13263. This theory has been also been cited by 62 other articles. 108.65.40.195 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is a doctoral thesis which mentions and supports the theory. What is needed for a mention in Pain is a careful assessment of the theory by someone with recognised expertise, that evaluates it and puts it in context. Has the theory, as Sota Omoigui's theory, been carefully analysed by a review devoted to it or analysed in a broader review devoted to current thinking in pain theory, published in a graduate-level textbook or monograph or a highly-regarded journal yet? If not, we will need to wait for that. That is one of the requirements for inclusion of biomedical information in Wikipedia articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Anthony.....The doctoral thesis by Leiden University exceeds the requirements you state for an independent review of this theory. The thesis is 239 pages and supervised by 7 professors [2]. The research described in this thesis was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and conducted at the Division of Pharmacology of the Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden University,The Netherlands and the Department of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics of GlaxoSmithKline in Harlow, United Kingdom.
I hope the expertise in this thesis is more than enough to convince you. If not, I will request a third party mediator to ensure that this theory of pain is mentioned in the Wikipedia Section on Pain Theories. Medicinechief (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Continued issues
[edit]We need to use high quality secondary sources. This typically means review articles or major medical textbooks published in the last 5 or at most 10 years. A number of the refs above are primary sources. If you are unfamiliar wit these terms we have articles that describe each. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- By all means seek more opinions. We have various noticeboards where editors can ask for input, depending on the situation. James is emphasising the sources you're citing. To discuss the appropriateness of those we have Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. My concern is that the theory has not been considered and evaluated extensively enough in major textbooks and journal reviews, so to address the merits of that view there is Wikipedia:Fringe theories noticeboard. Please only open one discussion - editors on one board will take into account all aspects of policy when discussing the proposed edit.
- Both my opinion and James's are based on fundamental guidelines that you should master before opening a thread on one of those boards, if you want to effectively engage with the discussion. James, if I've overlooked an important relevant policy or guideline, would you please chip in?
- The references just added are combined primary and secondary sources from the Trip Database recommended by Doc James. I will submit this theory for dispute solution as there is no reason to continue to prevent the addition of this theory.75.22.67.232 (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)75.22.67.232 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is a simple breakdown of various dispute resolution options at
- I think going to one of the relevant noticeboards is the best option at this stage, but you might want to consider one of the others. When you do open a dispute resolution discussion, could you please mention this conversation? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)