Talk:Keratoconjunctivitis sicca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keratoconjunctivitis sicca article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Citation duplication

I think once per paragraph is enough. If you have different sources in the paragraph put them all at the end of the paragraph.--Chrisdab 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of citations in this article is absolutely ridiculous. There's no need for a citations after every word. 84.90.41.37 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That might have been fine had this been a non-medical article, but because this is a medical article, it is very important that there be available a source for every statement. Paragraphs and even individual sentences often comprise of info obtained from multiple sources, and it would otherwise be difficult to determine the source for any particular statement or item. The goal is to maximize trust in the content.
Also see [1]. It states:
Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations. It is too easy for a later editor to change the body text and then nobody is sure which statements are backed up by which sources. Unlike many established scientific disciplines, medicine attracts controversy and opponents on even the most basic and commonly held facts.
I actually think this should ideally be the case for every Wikipedia article, although it'd probably be too tedious. --Amit 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think at least do it at the end if the sentence. It seems a little overboard and it does make it hard to read. I mean medical journals don't have this many citations in their sentences. I'm a little tired so it may be hard to get my point across but multiple citations for the same source, at least in the same sentence, aren't useful if the link points just to the source article and not the actual text that is cited. thanks --Chrisdab 10:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point that it would probably make for a cleaner and more readable article if the citations are not between two words in a sentence. However, even several individual sentences comprise of info obtained from multiple sources. At present, it is possible to know which item in the sentence is obtained from which source, but otherwise this will not be possible. It is also easy to find the actual text in the ref using the find feature in one's browser. --Amit 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For some it wouldnt be a problem to reduce the citations. the 2nd paragraph in Symptons for example has the same citation after every sentence while the citation could just be at the end of the paragraph. it would be a good idea to review the article and make citation changes so it isnt so cluddered. 24.241.227.184 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that may not be a very good idea, because sentences can be added or modified later on by others, and if this happens in the paragraph under discussion, it'll then later be unclear as to which sentences came from where. In my opinion, what this article and WP in general really need is a better way of citing info, so users reading the article don't have to always be bothered with them. --Amit 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the citations are from the same source, so it isn't necessary to put all of these citations after every single phrase. It becomes an eye sore for the article and also becomes difficult to read and print. Citations should be added at the end of the paragraph. -Vlad (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced text

This section includes unsourced text that has been removed from the article. --Amit 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Causes

Research indicates that approximately 80 per cent of dry eye cases are due to a deficient or disrupted lipid layer, which leads to abnormally fast evaporation of protective tears and subsequent irritation. The lipid layer is the outside layer of the tear film which helps prevent the evaporation of the tears. [1]

Other research indicates the film does not evaporate but suffers de-wetting caused by a hydrophobic ocular surface - ref Frank Holly Phd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.165.60 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarymist

I'm moving all of the info about Clarymist from the article to this page. This is because of several reasons, namely:

  1. No third-party references exist for these claims, and Wikipedia shouldn't serve as a basis for product advertisement.
  2. Looking at the research study in detail, a large portion of the reported reduction in symptoms can be attributed simply to using a placebo.

It seems more than a bit unusual that a product for dry eyes would work even when sprayed with the eyes closed. I had to try it out for myself though to be sure. I did, and it did not have any effect, irrespective of whether it was sprayed with eyes closed or open. The text removed is below. --Amit 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A recent placebo controlled study at Aston University indicated that up to an hour after appliation of Clarymist, the lipid layer was found to significantly increase in thickness. Up to 30 minutes after application, over 50 per cent of subjects reported that eyes subjected to Clarymist were also more comfortable. These findings are shortly to be presented at an eye care conference.
Clarymist is a natural soy lecithin spray treatment that attempts to treat the cause rather than the symptoms of dry eye. Clarymist works by stabilising the tear’s lipid layer, thus helping to prevent abnormally fast evaporation which is one of the causes of dry eye.
Clinical trials of 382 subjects showed that 89 percent reported a reduction in dry eye symptoms as a result of using Clarymist.[2]
Unlike drops and gels, Clarymist is sprayed onto closed eyes and can be used when wearing contact lenses. Clarymist has not been shown to produce any adverse side effects.

Clarymist is designed to help people who have dry eye and although trials have shown it to benefit people without dry eye the perceived effects are less marked. If you don't have dry eye then it doesn't surprise me that you didn't find it had any affect. Many people find it difficult to believe that this spray can have any effect when sprayed on to the closed eye. When I'm working with patients who have dry eye it can be difficult to persuade them to even try Clarymist because they immediately think it can't possibly work. However, its my experience in clinical practice, that those patients who have lipid dysfunction dry eye do often get benefit from this spray and tell me that their symptoms are much reduced. Once sprayed on the closed eye the solution works its way along the eye lashes and the lid margins and then into the eye. Enough will enter the eye in this way to improve the tear film for many people with lipid dysfunction dry eye. This is a recognised method of applying eye medication and is often used in procedures for the detection of eye diseases. Frank45 09:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Androgen

I don't have time to work on this now, especially with Wikipedia's rules about citations. But maybe someone else would like to get all the citations to back up the following. David Sullivan at Harvard Medical School's Eye Institute has done some work over the last several years that shows that androgen therapy helps with dry eye. Allergan currently has some androgen eye drops in clinical trials. I heard Sullivan speak at a scientific meeting (where my job was to write up the proceedings, write, not just transcribe) and his ideas were good. Basically, dry eye is more common in older women than men. He thinks it is because as women go through menopause, testosterone levels drop (little known fact), which leads to dry eye. Androgens control the viscosity of the oils in the skin oil glands and similar ones that protect the cornea as well. Men's testosterone levels generally being higher to begin with, it's less of a problem for them--oil stays thin,not too thick to stream over the eye and prevent fluid from evaporating. I'm happy to provide my write up of the meeting proceedings, which were published in 2002 and constitute a respectable secondary source (though not, ironically, if I write the material here myself). Here's the title "Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Sex and Gene Expression" I'll check my watchlist to see if anyone asks for it. Also, there was a recent article in the LA Times in which Sullivan's work was mentioned. Eperotao 17:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as this is comparatively short, I'm just going to post it here. This IS copyrighted by the Society for Women's Health Research, but I'm hoping I'm not violating any laws by allowing people interested in dry eye to read it, since the organization's mission is to help people with health problems. Please do not plagiarize this for the entry. This is a summary of a talk given by Harvard eye researcher David Sullivan in 2002. He was given an opportunity to read and correct this, so it can be considered accurate.
(I have removed the content with a copyright claim. The closest equivalent by the author I could find was PMID 17216082 ) --Arcadian 02:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restasis

Tell me, does that bit about "Restasis" sound too advirtisementy? (it was added 11 March 2006 by 67.87.254.63)

I don't know if that bit should be deleted but for the claim, it should certainly be backed by sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seunghun (talk)
A bit, but it's true. I added a source.-AED 05:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a little bit about the mechanism of action of the Restasis... I wanted to include some history on cyclosporine, i.e. that it was discovered in 1972, that it has historically been known for it's use in preventing solid organ transplant rejection...but couldn't really find a good spot or way to incorporate it. Maybe that can be added once the topic has been pulled out to it's own article. --Kfanciulli 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Oils / Omega 3 / Alpha Lineolic Acid

Hi chaps, I've renamed the 'omega 3' subsection as 'fish oils' as the study cited by Miljanovic et al examined used questions on sea food consumption as a surrogate for omega-3 intake. Cross sectional surveys are open to confounding and it would be safer to report the study findings rather than the authors inferences. I've also amended my typo regarding the Arch Ophth study Nernst (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing article title to "dry eyes" or "dry eye syndrome"

Has anybody thought of changing the page title to Dry eyes or Dry eye syndrome. Most people (vets and optoms included) are unlikely to put 'keratoconjuncitivitis sicca' in to google. This is a good article and shouldn't be hidden. It's quite a big change and I'd be reluctant to make it without some feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.186.66 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Both terms already redirect to this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concern, but Wikipedia policy requires that the article title should be the scientific or recognized medical name rather than the lay term. For more information, see naming conventions for medicine related articles. As such, I don't see how the article title can be changed.