Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Neurocysticercosis

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA status. I've gotten input from a number of editors and I'm going to be pinging some specific editors who I've reached out to in the past or who I know are great in this area so I'm sorry if I ping anyone who is not interested or does not have the time. Pings: @AirshipJungleman29, Gen. Quon, Jimfbleak, SchroCat, Graham Beards, Gerda Arendt, Ajpolino, and WhatamIdoing: Thanks in advance, IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing

edit

Thanks for your work on this.

  • Links: This is a very technical subject, with lots of unfamiliar anatomical terms. It needs more links than usual. We probably also need links to articles that don't exist yet. I've added some redlinks that you might be able to find suitable redirect targets for. In other cases ("lentil lectin purified glycoprotein (LLGP) enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB) assay"?), perhaps we could beg that medical class to create the articles for us. If you dislike any of my suggested links, then I am trusting you to just remove them. I suspect that the link in "human and porcine mass chemotherapy" is pointed at the wrong page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: Most of this is quite good (i.e., I understand what you're saying, and nothing sounds obviously wrong to me), but I don't love the line "the methods used to diagnose it can be problematic". Does this mean they're dangerous? Unethical? Or is it redundant with "hard to access"? Also, the classification sub-section says there are two types and gives three bullet points. The abbreviation NCC is used only in captions until the ==Prevention== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source does use the word "problematic" but based on what they write elsewhere I think they are trying to imply that the tests used aren't always reliable, unless anyone finds an issue with this I'm going to change the wording to unreliable instead. As for the classification portion this is a result of the source having slightly confusing wording. I've changed it to "two main subtypes" as parenchymal and extraparenchymal are the two most common presentations but the other category is still worth noting. If you have a better idea as to how to approach this please do let me know. The abbreviation thing was me getting lazy while expanding the article. I'll replace NCC with the full term since it is what I used throughout the majority of the article. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnostic criteria: There are copyvio problems around (some) diagnostic criteria. I have checked none of the sources, but I would like to see this written, to the greatest extent feasible, in your own words. An exact, word-for-word copy of the official source is not always best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: The second paragraph of ==Epidemiology== probably needs some refs duplicated. The 1997 (image) source doesn't concern me, but I see several sources from 2014. Ideally, as we approach the start of 2025, almost all of the sources would be from 2020 or more recent. Is there a more recent version of any of these sources available? Any recent source you wished for but couldn't find a copy of? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the ref after every figure or number, may have overdone it but I'm sure someone will tell me if I have. As for the map, there's two main reasons why I have an older one used. Mainly it's that I couldn't find any newer sources that had maps that could be used on Wikipedia (copyright reasons) and because I don't remember many other sources having maps for the epidemiology part but I may have missed that. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not really concerned about the images. I'm mostly concerned about WP:MEDDATE for the text of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops I misread your original comment. Unfortunately I couldn't find that many more recent comprehensive studies on the topic. I could take a second look but the 2014 source is unfortunately one of the most comprehensive sources on the topic. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I'd like to know is, if "intervention programs can take decades", and de-worming is a preventive treatment, how often would de-worming need to happen? I've read about some annual de-worming programs (e.g., the traveling health program de-worms entire villages once a year, rotating through the different villages). Would that be often enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this is an interesting question that I to would love the answer to, I'm not sure if an answer exists yet. It was pretty hard to find non-primary studies on prevention. There unfortunately (at least to my knowledge) there haven't been many large prevention programs for NCC. The main ones I included in the prevention section. I'll see if I can find anything on this tho and see if the studies done thus far have followed a similar timeline. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If there's no answer in a good source, then I will just have to stay curious about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did search for answer and it looks like the time ranged from anywhere from a couple weeks for pig vaccines to years for more in depth education programs. I could add the time it took for the 3 studies I talked about in the last pargraph of the prevention paragraph if you think that would be helpful. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how long does treatment take? Does this usually require weeks or months of frequent trips to the doctor? I can imagine that being a barrier to treatment in the rural areas where the risk of transmission is highest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I was able to find the time needed for antiseizure meds and antiparasitic meds but not for steroids. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Suggest scaling up the life cycle diagram; throughout, scaling should be done with |upright= rather than fixed pixel size
  • You have several sources in the article indicated as being in the public domain, but then you have images from those same sources tagged as being Creative Commons licensed. Which of those is correct?
  • How are you ordering the Sources section?
  • The Causes and Mechanism sections seem to overlap. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the scale on all of the images using the upright instead and upscaled that one a bit. I mixed up copyright terms but have changed that now. They are now appropriately tagged. I ordered the sources section based on when the sources are used and then all the image sources at the end as I added those last. The causes and mechanisms do overlap a bit. I based the sections off of the WP:MEDMOS but if you think those sections would be better combined let me know. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

edit

I was invited to comment on this PR on my talk page, as a volunteer FAC mentor. With the very large proviso that this isn't a topic I know anything at all about, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Overall, the article is in very good shape and covers the topic in a comprehensive but not too detailed way. It would benefit from some polishing to reach FA status though.
  • As a general comment, the article's wording is generally a bit too technical for a general audience (as a single, indicative example, I don't know what "the most common cause of intracranial hypertension in neurocysticercosis is hydrocephalus" means). I'd suggest reviewing the text with an eye to using simpler terminology and explaining concepts more - remember that Wikipedia's most important use is generally as an introduction to topics for a general but interested readership.
  • The sentence starting with 'Neurocysticercosis manifests' is rather over-complex, and should be split into two sentences
  • "The first recorded cases of neurocysticercosis were likely in 1558" - the article later notes though that the disease appears to have been circulating in ancient Egypt and Rome.
  • "is endemic in developing countries, such as Latin America, China, Nepal, Africa, India, and Southeast Asia" - these are regions, not countries, and the regions include many countries that are not "developing" - e.g. much of modern Southeast Asia is at middle income status and countries like Chile and Singapore are classified as being at high levels of development.
  • The "Causes" section implies that people who consume Taenia solium are certain to have tapeworms develop. Is this the case?
  • The Diagnosis section states that the disease is " often hard to access in areas with fewer resources" - do sources allow this statement to be extended to note that this is often the case in the developing economies that are most affected by it? (or are there good ways to diagnose the disease using low tech/cost ways in these countries?)
  • Could the redlink to Eradicable disease point to Eradication of infectious diseases, or are we best off with the redlink as is? (I'm surprised that we don't have an article on Eradicable diseases given the concept seems a bit different, and is very important)
  • For disposal of waste, waste disposal/Waste management seems the appropriate link. You might want to create a redirect.
  • "Urbanization and development cause these factors to go away" - I think that the wording here could be tweaked to be a bit more formal
  • The treatment section notes that this is a fairly complex disease to treat, with the response needing to be tailored to the individual's symptoms and circumstances and often requiring a relatively complex response. While it's not stated, I imagine that this is difficult/impossible in many developing economies and remote areas.
  • "Over half of those with calcified parenchymal neurocysticercosis have relapses in seizures and need antiseizure medications long-term." - needs a reference
  • Are the increase in cases in wealthy countries noted in the 'Epidemiology' section due to local infections or people contracting the disease elsewhere and then travelling to these countries? The later is implied, but is a bit unclear.
  • The map of Indonesia here is a bit odd given that the article says the disease isn't common in Muslim countries. Why is Indonesia being highlighted given it's mainly a Muslim nation?
  • There's a see also link to Neglected tropical diseases, but this diseases' status as such isn't discussed in the body of the article. This would be a good topic to cover if it is a neglected tropical disease (in general, if you need a see also in articles that are being developed for FA status it's probably a topic that should be covered in the article). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, with regard to the question about Muslim countries, only one of the two provided references actually claimed this, and I think that it is a dated viewpoint in a globalized world (this is not an article about taeniasis, which is more directly linked to undercooked meat consumption). The other reference correctly points out that the pork tapeworm is endemic in "most developing countries" and that neurocysticercosis is more frequently being seen in developed countries as well. Neurocysticercosis absolutely qualifies as a neglected tropical disease.
Singhi, Pratibha; Suthar, Renu (2015). "Neurocysticercosis". Indian Journal of Pediatrics. 82: 166–171. doi:10.1007/s12098-014-1576-3. PMID 25297641.
"Neglected tropical diseases: Taeniasis and cysticercosis". World Health Organization. 6 April 2020. Retrieved 4 December 2024. Tsarivan613 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This feedback has been super helpful so thank you. I'm going to reply to each of your points individually starting with your second point. I also want to apologize for the delay in response.
  1. The technicality of this subject is something I have really struggled with. I think (and please tell me if you disagree) the lead has been simplified enough to be understandable to the average reader. I did define the terms intracranial hypertension and hydrocephalus as they are used a lot so thank you for pointing that out. However the one kind of struggle I'm having is wether every single section needs to be simplified to the level of an average reader. For example the "diagnostic criteria" section. I don't really think that's something someone who just wanted to know about the disease would be super interested in. That section is more meant for medical proffesionals. With that in mind I have written it a step down (per WP:ONEDOWN) so that hopefully the average medical student could understand it. I'm also struggling to continue to simplify the article without omitting details or losing meaning. Just to give an example, the article ME/CFS is the most recent medical FA. If you look at the "Pathophysiology" section there is some content that will not be understood by the average reader however further simplifying it would lose meaning. All of that being said, if there is certain sections, words, or setences that you find way too technical please point them out but I am struggling a bit with the suggestion of just simplifying the article.
  2. I changed it to Neurocysticercosis manifests with various signs and symptoms, influenced by the location, number of lesions, and immune response. It can range from asymptomatic to fatal; common symptoms include seizures, intracranial hypertension, cognitive impairment, and focal deficits. hopefully that looks better.
  3. I believe this confusion comes from the wording a bit so let me know if I can make this more clear. Based off the sources there was cases of what we can now presume was NCC back in 1500 BC and ancient egypt but it was not identified as such at the time. For a long time autopsies weren't done in part because the catholic church frowned upon them. However sometime around 1558 the catholic church began to allow autopsies and therefore we had someone actually identify NCC in a dead patient. So 1558 was the first time someone actually wrote up a case report or somehow told others that NCC existed despite the fact that it did exist before that.
  4. I changed the wording to regions. I believe what the source was saying was not that all countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia have NCC endemics but that more contries in those areas do than in other areas. I'm not sure if it would be better to just omit those areas and stick to just the countries or find a way to word this better. Let me know what you think.
  5. While I'm almost sure, without a source to confirm this, that everyone who consumes Taenia solium does not immediately get NCC the sources do not make this distinction clearly. There wasn't any information on factors that may impact wether or not ingested Taenia solium becomes NCC or not. I'm not really sure how to clarify this.
  6. The source I used for that statement does say "Accurate diagnosis of NCC is notoriously difficult; available methods are problematic and implementation in resource-poor endemic is patchy." which seems to be the extent of how much detail is provided but I will keep searching. Unfortunately because of the fact that it can take several expensive time consuming tests to diagnose NCC there does not seem to be any proposed cheaper or more accessible diagnostic options.
  7. As for the redlinks, I'm going to go through them myself and see what redirects I can make and possibly bug some med students to create some articles or create some myself.
  8. Changed to Urbanization and development reduce these factors, therefore transmission goes down. hopefully that looks better.
  9. While this is most likely true I'm not finding anything in the sources that could support that well enough to be included.
  10. Fixed
  11. Yes you are correct. I changed the wording to usually a result of people contracting Taenia solium while travelling or immigration. to clarify.
  12. In referance to the map, it is the only map I could find in the PD hence why I used it over more comprehensive maps. Someone else chimed in mentioning that the muslim part is only mentioned in one source, which is correct and I'm considering removing that part since the source that mentions it is a bit older.
  13. While NCC is considered a nglected tropical disease none of the sources outright state that. They kind of imply it in a round about way (it being completely preventable but still not having programs to do so) and I just couldn't figure out a way to coherantly include that. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neurocysticercosis is on the WHO neglected tropical diseases list as part of "taeniasis/cysticercosis". It's also on the PLoS NTD list. No opinion on whether that info needs to be included in the article or not. As examples, I included it directly at Buruli ulcer but only tangentially at Dracunculiasis. I didn't intend to have different strategies for the two articles, I was just trying to reflect the coverage (or lack thereof) in sources. Ajpolino (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
On the last point, if you don't have sources saying this is a neglected tropical disease the see also has no justification for being in the article. Details like this matter at FA level. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll remove it thank you. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

edit

Having been invited here by IntentionallyDense, I'll leave a few comments later. I will also specify that I don't know anything about the topic, so I'll try to point out anything that seems unclear or confusing. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "improperly cooked food". This is an odd expression. There is not a proper way of cooking. Maybe "undercooked".
  • You often use technical terms without links or explanation, for example, focal deficit, antiedema, Ependymitis, Arachnoiditis etc.
  • I think that the causes and mechanism sections should come before signs and symptoms.
  • "Neurocysticercosis often results from improperly cooked infected pork or other food, or contaminated water." Do you mean always by eating or drinking? I have read that some parasites can enter through wounds when bathing in contaminated water. You seem to imply that it can always be prevented by thorough cooking and boiling. If this is so, then you should say so. If not, then you should clarify other mechanisms.
  • "in which the cysticercus is no further viable". This is ungrammatical.
  • "a huge body composed of several hundred proglottids". "huge" is vague and unhelpful.
  • There is an excessive number of red links. This is unhelpful to the reader.
  • The word "improper" is over-used. I doubt whether it should ever be used in this article as it always seems to mean inadequate, which is a more accurate term.
  • Thanks for all your work, but I am not sure what the audience is for this article. There are far too many unexplained technical terms for the general reader, and anyone capable of understanding it would read a textbook rather than a Wikipedia article. I think you need to make the article much clearer to non-expert readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to address each one of your points individually to stay organized. Thank you for your feedback it means a lot to me.
    1. fixed the improperly to undercooked
    2. The reason these are not linked is because articles for them don't exist but I'm working on that. Focal deficit is somewhat defined in the section "Focal deficit" as "specific neurologic symptoms determined by the size, number, and location of the parasites." as a focal deficit is simply a problem with nerve, spinal cord, or brain function affecting a specefic location. antiedema seems a bit more straight forward as the word anti means to get rid of (or something along those lines) and so one could assume it would mean a medication that gets rid of edema. As for Ependymitis and Arachnoiditis I will add definitions for those.
    3. I'm going to have to disagree with the ordering of the sections as it is what is stated it WP:MEDMOS and is used in other (recent) medical FA such as ME/CFS
    4. While some parasites can enter in other ways it seems that NCC is specefically caused by ingesting the parasite as it needs to attach to the intestines to grow. While I can't say for sure that there has never been a case of NCC through other means it is not mentioned in secondary sources. I do state in the prevention section that NCC is completely preventable and how it is preventable but I'm not sure how I could make this more clear.
    5. Fixed to in which the cysticercus is no longer viable
    6. Changed to large. Let me know if I should just ommit any description of size here.
    7. As for the red links, I'm not quite sure what you want me to do about this. Wikipedia encourages adding red links as per WP:RED "Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow... In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject.".
    8. Improper is now used 3 times in the article. In all the contexts it's is used it's is meant to mean that the proccess isn't being done correctly, not just that it is not being done well enough. Maybe inccorect would be a better term instead?
    9. As for the intended audience of the article, it differs. The lead is meant to be targetted towards the everyday reader. I think I've got it to that point but let me know if I haven't. Other sections (such as symptoms, causes, prevention, history etc) are meant for someone who wants a bit more info on the topic. As per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable "some subjects naturally attract a more limited audience" which I think would apply to these sections. The average reader probably won't read much past the lead by default. Some of the sections, such as the diagnosis and treatment aren't of much interest to the general public. I mean how many people outside of the medical feild do you see taking interest in the diagnostic criteria of a brain parasite? In those cases I write WP:ONEDOWN. So while specefic diagnostic criteria of a disease is something you would probably be learning as a medical resident I tried to write it at the level of a medical student instead. As for why people would choose Wikipedia over a textbook, it's not uncommon for people to need a quick refresher on a topic instead of an indepth textbook chapter. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the parasite entering other ways I think it would be clearer if you specified drinking contaminated water to make clear that it is not other ways such as through wounds. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZKang123

edit

I decided to take a look at this.

  • Minor thing, but I might first describe the symptoms before the causes for the first paragraph, given that's how you organised the rest of the article.
  • The second and third leading paragraphs could be combined in some way. The second seems a bit short and hanging there.
  • Seizures are more common in parenchymal neurocysticercosis than in other forms of neurocysticercosis.[2] Seizures may occur at any stage of the disease – might combine these two sentences. Just watch out for short sentences so it doesn't seem too choppy.
  • If neurocysticercosis is left untreated seizures will often reoccur, and persist despite treatment – The placement of commas here is a bit awkward. I would write If neurocysticercosis is left untreated, seizures will often reoccur, and persist despite treatment The second comma seems optional, but I guess it means despite treatment, it would continue to persist.
  • Seizures are more commonly associated with degenerating cysts.[4] These cysts are often accompanied by – ...associated with degenerating cysts, which are often accompanied by...
  • I felt the seizures subsection gets rather choppy especially with plenty of sentences starting with "seizures". It's kind of giving me a seizure, haha. Similarly for Intracranial hypertension, which tends to have many sentences beginning with it.
  • In truth, and I might be dumb, but I'm not so sure what's focal deficits?
  • For the sentence beginning with Those with neurocysticercosis and inflammation of the arachnoid..., it's a bit too long and there are two "caused by...", which makes reading this sentence hard to read.
  • a build of pressure around the brain – Do you mean a "build-up of pressure"?
  • Only one source for the "other symptoms" subsection?

My first impression thus far is that while it's clean to read, as a few others point out, it can get rather technical at bits especially when you just list the symptoms. For example, I'm unsure what are "ophthalmologic" and "endocrinologic" symptoms. The specific forms of each disease can be a bit alien to ordinary readers, and perhaps the medical term for like some body parts such as "ventricles", "parenchyma", "subretinal space".--ZKang123 (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1&oldid=1261655360"