Talk:Insomnia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neuroscience This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insomnia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Statistics for Insomnia

"The average American gets 7 hours of sleep, instead of the 8 to 10 hours recommended by doctors. Children however are recommended more than 8 hours." This statement has nothing to do with insomnia. Anyone care to comment? josta59 16 May 2007


[edit] Merger Proposal

I have no idea why there is a separate article discussing causes for insomnia. Maybe it was an attempted fork, or someone just didn't realize there was a main insomnia article. Regardless, the information within that article, if it is good, should be merged into this article and that one deleted or redirected here. Collectonian 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not.--Rory666 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, you'd rather not what? *scratching head* The merger is now done. Causes was an WP:NPOV fork and much of it I tossed out, but the good stuff was kept and incorporated into the insomnia article. Collectonian 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to non-medicinal treatments

I would appreciate comments on whether the following should be added:

Control of the circadian cycle is primarily by way of light sensors in the eye that are distinct from those producing vision, according to two studies published in 2001 [1] [2] These newly discovered sensors respond primarily to light at the blue end of the visual spectrum with maximum sensitivity at about 480nm. The production of melatonin by the pineal gland is diminished during the night if the eyes are exposed to light that includes the blue rays. Wearing eyeglasses that block blue light has been demonstrated [3] to allow production of melatonin even when in bright surroundings. The glasses produce a condition that has been called “virtual darkness” . While allowing production of melatonin, the glasses let through enough light that normal evening activities like watching TV, working on a computer and reading can continue. Preliminary experiments [4] with patients with bipolar disorder have shown that wearing blue blocking glasses for a few hours before bedtime reduces time to fall asleep and improves self rated sleep quality. Anecdotal evidence from hundreds of individuals with sleep problems confirm many people are helped by avoiding blue light in the hours before bedtime.

Rhansler 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Rhansler

This does not deal with the issue of insomnia. The second source is for shift workers, while the third is specifically for those with bipolar disorder. It does not belong in this article, as I have already stated repeatedly. So far, no other editor has voiced support for its addition, so please stop trying to add it unless someone else can agree that it relates to insomnia (and rewrite it to actually demonstrate that). Collectonian 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What are your qualifications to make this judgement? We have evidence that hundreds of people have found that blocking blue light in the evening has solved their insomnia problem. Rhansler 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources themselves show the limits, which are shift workers and bipolar. Neither are general studies of normal insomnia. We? That sounds like you are personally involved in the study or something. Your own attempted addition does NOT support that it helps anyone with insomnia, only that it may help a few people go to sleep faster. Also, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for inclusion. Collectonian 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Lacking consensus on the above, I propose to add something along these lines under Treatment for Insomnia under Complementary and Alternative Medicine. “Avoiding exposing the eyes to light (especially blue light) in the hours before bedtime allows melatonin to start flowing which promotes sleep.” Rhansler (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a stand alone sentence, as it is still related more to sleeping habits rather than acute or chronic insomnia. It would fit into the first paragraph, though. How about we change it to:
Some traditional and anecdotal remedies for insomnia include: drinking warm milk before bedtime, taking a warm bath, exercising vigorously for half an hour in the afternoon, eating a large lunch and then having only a light evening meal at least three hours before bed, avoiding mentally stimulating activities in the evening hours, going to bed at a reasonable hour and getting up early, and avoiding exposing the eyes to bright light, especially blue light, a few hours before bedtime. Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: I also reworded some other bits which read badly anyway, and changed light to bright light since I'm presuming you didn't mean people should sit in the dark for a few hours, then go to bed ;) Collectonian (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The amount of light needed to significantly suppress melatonin is not that large, e.g. 200 lux or about 20 ft. candles. I guess it all depends on what one calls "bright". In any case, whether you include bright or not , I think this is fine. Rhansler (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knol

Look at [1]. It would be better to improve this article about insomnia in wikipedia, because it will be often compared with the one from Google Knol. 83.5.242.20 (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If Knol has articles written by Stanford Scientists, then expect it to have depth, since the average level of expertise will be higher. But, Wikipedia has breadth, which is altogether a different sort of advantage.Tparameter (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same when I read the Knol article. I have tried to awaken interest in the article from the different projects that have tagged this article to be within their scope. Further I tried to go through the major language wikipedia articles to see if there were any version that could be translated, but as far as I could see they were kind of similar in quality to this one. --MoRsE (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the Insomnia article needs work. Its on my "to do" list, but being such a huge topic, it is certainly a daunting task. It would be nice if one of the related projects would consider it for collaboration, since it is certainly a huge topic and such a common ailment that the article's low quality is almost embarrassing. I removed the Knol link because it seemed like a google search result link (I admittedly didn't check it and have no clue what this new Google Knol thing is). Collectonian (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but the Knol article is so detailed and authoritative that it makes this Wiki article redundant and irrelevant.
It was written by a Director of Stanford University, we can't compete with that. I am now convinced that Wikipedia will lose space because of Knol at least on Health and medicine pages.
Either we put our shit together or Wikipedia will stop being reference.

EconomistBR (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many attempt to edit or write about a subject without knowing too much--like a High School student writing on some health issue.We have to respect someone who is more knowledgeable--especially medical related topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article has some huge problems

I am supposed to be working right now, so I can't go into everything. Let's just take the first paragraph: Insomnia is a sleeping disorder characterized by persistent difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep despite the opportunity. It is typically followed by functional impairment while awake. Insomniacs have been known to complain about being unable to close their eyes or "rest their mind" for more than a few minutes at a time. Both organic and non-organic insomnia constitute a sleep disorder.

First of all, the last sentence--"both organic and non-organic..." I haven't looked at the citation(s) and I don't much care to. It needs to be specified within the paragraph according to whom, because according to the DSM, a diagnosis of insomnia (referred to as 'primary insomnia' (307.42)) is not made if the insomnia is of the organic type. There is no other type of insomnia diagnosis other than this. There is 'Substance-induced sleep disorder' of which 'insomnia type' (327.01) can be specified, and there is 'Insomnia Related to Another Mental Disorder' (327.02), but these are three different conditions. I would not classify these all as "insomnia" even if the 'sympotms' are the same. If it doesn't make sense why, let me draw an analogy: we don't diagnose methamphetamine addicts who display symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia as having paranoid schizophrenia, even when symptoms appear identical. Causes are important. Next,

I have a problem with the "insomniacs have been known to complain about being unable to close their eyes" part. If someone cannot literally close their eyes for more than a few minutes at a time, then they might have something far more serious than insomnia. This is poorly phrased--I'm not even sure that complaints of some insomniacs should belong in an introductory paragraph, but that is merely personal opinion.

Lastly--I've really got to go so I have to cut this short--I don't like the phrasing "staying asleep despite the opportunity". That could, and should, be stated in a more 'normal' way. Now, this is just the first paragraph. The whole article pretty much has problems. There are important things that it fails to state, and much of the things are stated poorly or are debatable in terms of accuracy. I do hope you find your "expert" on this. I realize I have given definitions according to the DSM. I am not a neurologist so I do not know specifically the term for the diagnosis that would be given if the insomnia were based on a neurological condition but it would not fall under any of those that I have described, of which primary insomnia is basically just what its name says that it is (and not only is it primary insomnia, it is insomnia). Thus, if you are going by a different diagnostic criteria then that must be specified in the paragraph--not in a footnote. I can't emphasize this enough. --70.59.146.117 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References seem to be broken

The references section seems to be broken, as in there aren't any references to match in-text footnotes. 76.10.172.101 (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)