Talk:Diabetic nephropathy/Archive 1

add Kimmelstiel-Wilson nodules

add Kimmelstiel-Wilson nodules. It deserves it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.247.16 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology/causes

Any chance the pathophysiology of this condition could be added? Currently, the Etiopathology section only contains the microscopic changes that are detectible, and not the reasons for those changes. Ged3000 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at Microangiopathy, there's a decent explanation, but it doesn't really explain why the basement membrane thickening occurs (maybe we don't really know this yet?). Either way, some of this information should be included in this article. 74.190.48.43 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

"The syndrome can be seen in patients with chronic diabetes (usually less than 15 years after onset)about 5 years in type 1 diabetes. "

Does anyone know what this statement means? It's the first sentence in the article's "epidemiology" section. --Spiffulent (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in parentheses "(between 50 and 70 years old)" appears out of place. Can somebody correct this, pls?79.68.87.11 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is confusing - especially with "Clinical nephropathy secondary to glomerular disease usually manifests 15–25 years after diagnosis" How is the "syndrome" different from glomerular disease - is there another specific kind of kidney damage is there? Second, is this "clinical nephropathy" differnent from "appearance of .." - ie does the "clinical" mean once it's progressed to the point where its basically impossible for the kidney to repair itself with long-term ultra-tight blood sugar control? (specifically the kind of low-carb diet recommeded by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein - not meant to be POV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimw338 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References failing verification

Ozzie10aaaa, this source does not say that "Normal eGFR is above 90 mm/min/1.73.."[1] Nor does this source say that hypoglycemia is a complication of diabetic nephropathy.[2] There are probably others. More care is needed, please. KateWishing (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found several other references that also failed verification.[3][4] Checking every reference you added is too much work, so I'm considering reverting to the version before your edits and re-incorporating any good changes. Please be more cautious with references. Your epidemiology addition was good, so I suggest that you focus on adding new information rather than trying to reference uncited claims. KateWishing (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since TylerDurden8823 did a good job copy-editing the article, I decided to just remove the dubious references, rather than reverting to the old (equally unsourced) version. KateWishing (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article

KateWishing thank you for responding,..im certain we will both learn from this article.... The intro (lede) as you left it, with two references and image seems OK to you or should we add something?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lead needs a lot of work. As for your edits to it, you shouldn't capitalize the names of the disease in the middle of a sentence; they're not proper nouns. But I am more concerned about the referencing issues. KateWishing (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok these are the same references (no edits have been made), the second (#2) was there when I got to the article (per the history), should we get a new ref for #1?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reference isn't as bad as others (which is why I left it), but it still doesn't quite say the same thing as our article. The source states that diabetic nephropathy is "associated with damage to blood vessels that supply the glomeruli of the kidney," while we say that's it's "caused by damage to the capillaries in the kidney's glomeruli." Both claims happen to be accurate, but it's better not to go farther than the source. KateWishing (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perfect, I think we are on the right path...do you think the first image is ok...and do we need to add anything else to the intro?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to add anything right now. Ideally, the lead would summarize the body more fully. KateWishing (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok... the signs and symptoms section , seems ok refs and image? (just in case, I go to work in 40min. so if anything we'll continue tomorrow...it has been a pleasure...thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad we're working together now. The first source in that section does say that "more protein than normal collects in the urine", but it does not say — as our article did — that "symptoms typically develop in late stages and may be a result of excretion of high amounts of protein in the urine or due to kidney failure." You summarized the second source accurately, but that information is more suited to the Causes section, like it is in the source. And the actual symptoms from that source (fatigue, headache, swelling, etc.) needed to be added. I just made these changes. I also removed the high blood pressure image because it's not directly pertinent (readers may wrongly assume it shows the symptoms of diabetic nephropathy), and there's no longer room for an image in that section. KateWishing (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KateWishing I found this reference for the "diagnosis" section [5],Typical thresholds for defining proteinuria and albuminuria and this [6] for e GFR do you think we can use this reference or might we need to reword the text?...I think the "epidemiology" section is ok, what do you think?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The epidemiology section is good. The new albuminuria reference seems alright, although I would change "Normoalbuminuria" in our text to "Normal albuminuria." The eGFR reference does not say the same thing as our article. I would not use it at all, even with rewording, since it does not mention diabetic nephropathy (WP:SYNTH). The ideal way to write a diagnosis section would be to find a review on diabetic nephropathy and summarize the review's diagnosis section, rather than trying to source the previous text sentence-by-sentence. KateWishing (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perfect, I added it...we'll get another reference for eGFR, this one[7] or this one [8]?......also I think we can use this for the "treatment" section [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The addition looks good. Onto eGFR, although the first reference doesn't mention "diabetic nephropathy," it does say "also recommended for persons who may get kidney disease due to [...] diabetes", so we can use it. "above 90 mm/min/1.73" in our article should then be changed to "ranges from 90 to 120 mm/min/1.73²", per the source. The second reference for eGFR does not say the same thing as our article, however... I hope you see why that one should not be used. The treatment guideline is for diabetic neuropathy, not nephropathy (I made the same mistake when I first glanced at it.) KateWishing (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for catching that sometimes I have problems seeing the screen ( I use glasses but my vision is getting worse)...so I added that reference, will look for a "treatment" reference (without mistake)....the "prognosis" section has those complications from before I got to it (per the history) should we get rid of them, they aren't referenced and I really haven't been able to find anything?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I will add some sourced information to the prognosis section later. I might not respond quickly because I'll be busy shortly. KateWishing (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[10] this can be used as a source (for treatment) per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources what do you think? (and this for mechanism [11] ?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. KateWishing (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is the treatment section ok?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's good. KateWishing (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KateWishing mechanism and causes section, good?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start. I tried to reword it to be less technical. KateWishing (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

excellent,.. what should we do about "prognosis"?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CJASN

doi:10.2215/CJN.11111016 JFW | T@lk 22:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another: doi:10.2215/CJN.11491116 JFW | T@lk 21:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

will look to add[12] seem very good for article(last doi has problem w/ link)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

I have completed 45 edits over the last 5 days and think I am done for now. I just discovered the long discussion of Edits in the Archives between Ozzie10aaaa (talk) and KateWishing on 1-2 July 2015: I hope I didn't step on any toes with my edits. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, you've added a lot (references, etc.) in improving the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]