![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
Although the term unvoluntary is well-defined in this article and in the literature, it is frequently changed to involuntary here, perhaps by well-meaning editors who believe it is a typo, and don't read the text.
Please restore it whenever it is removed, as it is the correct usage. I will add an inline note. Sandy ( Talk) 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article's a rambling mess. If we're not sure Mozart had it, why is it even mentioned? 70.61.22.110 ( talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Newt
I don't think the article rambles or is a mess at all, not at all, but in rereading the Mozart discussion one thing jumped out at me: it spends too much time talking about the people who are disputing Mozart's diagnosis (Simkin, Sacks, their qualifications, etc.). This jumped out at me because I am currently looking at similar problems in Chiropractic (an article that is a rambling mess, and which goes on and on in the text about the WHO and the NCCAM and such-and-such eminent chiropractor's qualifications, in order to make that article more "persuasive"—but I digress.…) How about the following replacement for the Mozart paragraph, to address this issue? This replacement could be appended to the previous paragraph, which talks about Johnson.
Eubulides ( talk) 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, the Library of Congress has a very similar (but not identical) photograph available:
![]() | This image is available from the United States
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division under the digital ID
cph.3b26053 This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. |
![]() |
This one looks like it was done as part of the same shoot. Usage of this one's postage-stamp size would be acceptable here, under fair use. I'd rather have the big one, though, of course. I love the LoC's "Rights status not evaluated".… Eubulides ( talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The P&P image is tricky. The image’s page says “Rights status not evaluated”, which means only that P&P hasn’t done any footwork. There are different measures for determining PD status, depending on whether the image has been published. The P&P image says “Pantheon Books” (a division of Random House), so I’m inclined to believe it has been published. A published image becomes PD if it was: 1) Registered in the U.S. before 1923 or 2) Registered in the U.S. from and including 1923 through 1963, unless the copyright was renewed.
Given the date of 1935/6 (my eyes fail me), the latter may be valid. I searched at the Copyright Office, and didn’t see it registered/renewed. The caveat is that this really is a search one should do in person (anyone live in D.C.?) From a legal and/or policy standpoint, the uncertainty means it probably shouldn’t be used (I say that because I suspect such a publisher would be diligent about renewing). The lack of a reference in the archive, however, does seem to lend, if nothing else, a degree of "plausible deniability", so to speak. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Great ! OK, so if everyone agrees, I'll: remove the Mozart image, move the Johnson to where Mozart was (Cultural references), add Howard to Prognosis, and shorten the Mozart wording, making sure I combine all the refs and link over to the daughter article. Good? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Tourette syndrome #Diagnosis currently says this:
I'm finding it hard to parse that sentence because of its semicolon; was that intended to be a comma? Anyway, the sentence seems to be saying that Sydenham's chorea is one of the "other genetic conditions", but it's not genetic. Likewise for idiopathic dystonia; it might be genetic but might not. Conversely, the current wording can be read to imply that autism spectrum disorders are genetic; it's true that the mainstream opinion is that genetics are the most significant cause for ASD, but some rare cases do seem to be caused by environmental factors (see Causes of autism #Teratogens).
How about this rewrite?
Eubulides ( talk) 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know how this template works? I see it's used in the article, but I'm trying to add several of these notes in another article, but it won't work. The first note works fine, but the rest don't redirect... Thank! A ?? B ?? -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a link to Maze (film) which prominently portrays a character with Tourette syndrome Fholson 03:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I second that, as well as suggesting a link to The Tic Code and I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me. The film Maze was a good one and it portrayed accurate tics of the character the movie was based on but it did not really show how much more difficult his life really is- the person the character was based on, while his art is every bit as good, is not functioning on a level that the character in the movie did; relationships for him are very difficult to maintain and he has tics that make it difficult to be around babies, etc because he has poking and pinching tics. It also did not truly portray the difficulties he has functioning in society- being accosted by strangers who don't understand, being accused of being high or intoxicated, being asked to leave grocery stores and not return, etc. I would like to see a film that portrays it in all its reality, no matter how ugly and disturbing-- thats what people need to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.127 ( talk) 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the citation:
Kenney C, Kuo SH, Jimenez-Shahed J. "Tourette's syndrome" Am Fam Physician 2008 Mar 1;77(5):651–8. PMID 18350763.
It looks high-quality, though I haven't read it carefully. It's aimed at GPs rather than at researchers or the general public. Eubulides ( talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(And I have to remember to add Equine Tourette's, Pepper Belle the horse ... so busy with FAC.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is freely readable (yay!):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I haven't read this review, but if it's reliable it strikes me that it should be used as a candidate to check and/or replace citations to several primary studies currently used in Tourette syndrome, including Cohen & Leckman 1992 ( PMID 1517194), Bliss 1980 ( PMID 6934713), Kwak et al. 2003 ( PMID 14673893), Scahill et al. 1995 ( PMID 7872145), Miguel et al. ( PMID 10732667). Some of these studies are pretty old, and a recent reliable review would be preferable to them anyway as per WP:MEDRS.
Hope you don't mind my continuing suggestions for light bedtime reading. Eubulides ( talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Eubulides, if you come across anything on equine Tourette's, we still need to add it (example, well known race horse, Pepper Belle). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I briefly looked at it. It might be better to have a separate article on equine self-mutilation, and just briefly allude to it here. Although Dodman et al. 1994 ( PMID 8014092) say equine self-mutilation appears to be similar to Tourette's, they could just as easily have said that it's similar to trichotillomania; that is, it's a stereotypy whose specific relationship to TS is a bit speculative. Anyway, here are a couple more citations that may help in that endeavor:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Briefly mentions equine self-mutilation in the context of pathological self-injurious behavior (that is, via a different angle than TS). Freely readable.Eubulides ( talk) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Another free review to work in:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
One link should be added: http://www.tourettes-action.org.uk/ <-this is the new TSA UK website (TSA UK has changed name to Tourettes Action now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furya ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"A study of eight children, age 8–17, found that children with Tourette syndrome were quicker at processing certain mental grammar skills than are children without the condition. The abnormalities that lead to tics may also lead to "other rapid behaviors, including the cognitive processing of rule-governed forms in language and other types of procedural knowledge".[61]
Is this really a good source? How can you possibly make a conclusion on between 0.1% and 1% of the entire population (with Tourette's) of children by looking at 8? 82.17.136.199 ( talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to sign in Philipwhiuk ( talk) 11:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
This edit did things like changing "Arch Neurol." to " Archives of Neurology" (adding a wikilink, and spelling out the journal), and adding " (Review)" in places. Was this for consistency within this article only, or was it prompted by some change to some style guideline somewhere? (I ask because I mildly prefer abbreviations, non-wikilinked journal titles, and omitting "(Review)", and I hope I don't have to make similar changes to other articles. :-) Eubulides ( talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sacks - this guy has done some of the more formidible research in the disease. His work is referenced several times but not the man or his actual research which was pivotal to understanding and treating the condition, specifically with his case studies of "Witty Ticky Ray." Perhaps some inclusion? It's like having an article on Polio without mentioning Salk.
205.219.133.241 ( talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
At the same time, Sacks has faced criticism in the medical and disability studies communities. The details of some of his case studies have been questioned, [8] and Arthur K. Shapiro—described as "the father of modern tic disorder research" [9]—referring to Sacks celebrity status and that his literary publications received greater publicity than Shapiro's medical publications, said he is "a much better writer than he is a clinician". [10] Howard Kushner's A Cursing Brain? : The Histories of Tourette Syndrome, says Shapiro "contrasted his own careful clinical work with Sacks's idiosyncratic and anecdotal approach to a clinical investigation". [11] More sustained has been the critique of his political and ethical positions. Although many characterize Sacks as a "compassionate" writer and doctor, [12] [13] [14] others feel he exploits his subjects. [15] Sacks was called "the man who mistook his patients for a literary career" by British academic and disability-rights activist Tom Shakespeare, [16] and one critic called his work "a high-brow freak show". [17] Such criticism was echoed in the movie The Royal Tenenbaums, with Bill Murray's comic portrayal of "an Oliver Sacks-like neurologist who snickers openly at his weirdo subjects". [18] Sacks himself has stated "I would hope that a reading of what I write shows respect and appreciation, not any wish to expose or exhibit for the thrill," he sighs, "but it's a delicate business." [19]
The following text in Tourette syndrome #Prognosis cites two primary studies:
This research area has now been reviewed, by the following reliable secondary source:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)This review cites about 20 studies on pediatric TS and eye movements, all high-quality primary sources, including the two sources cited above. The studies cover antisaccades, visually guided saccades, memory guided saccades, and smooth pursuit eye movements. Almost all these studies report normal results in TS patients. Two studies (the two cited above, which are both by the same group) report above-average results. One study reports below-average. The review concludes:
This summary differs quite a bit from the impression that one gets from the abovequoted part of Tourette syndrome #Prognosis. I propose that we replace the above text with the following:
Eubulides ( talk) 05:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a school project on tourettes and so far ive only found stuff on George da le tourette (if thats how its spelt) can any one link more recent news on tourettes? it'd be be nice :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaihn52 ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following two paragraphs (reproduced below) are each saying more or less the same things:
I can merge the two paragraphs together, keeping the important stuff from each one (the "semi-voluntary/un-voluntary terminology from the second, the discussion of premonitory urges in the first, the possibility of suppression, etc.). I just wanted to check here first and make sure there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you see the problem: the paragraphs are covering three different things: 1) differential diagnosis re what makes tics distinguishable from other conditions, 2) premonitory urges, and 3) involuntary/unvoluntary. I want to stick closer to the sources on one part (everything that distinguishes tics from other movement disorders, the Jankovic text). Also, what came from Jankovic vs. what came from other sources got a wee bit jumbled in the rework and the Jankovic differential diagnosis info was lost. Also, the flow is a bit off now (well, it was off before, too, as you noted :-) And, I had to remove the "suffering from" POV construct, which isn't accurate for most people with tics (impairment or distress is not part of the diagnosis), and is offensive to some. Also, with the rework, I think we can get it all in to one paragraph.
How about this:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The following review was recently published on tetrabenazine and TS:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Alas, I lack easy access both to this review, and to Scahill et al. 2006 ( PMID 16554257), which appears to be the best review on medication and TS that we have. In the U.S., tetrabenazine is an orphan drug approved for use in August (not for TS), making it more likely for the topic to come up here. Do Scahill et al. mention tetrabenazine? Either way, it looks like we should briefly mention it and cite Porta et al., assuming someone can dig it up in their library. (If it helps, my library will have access to Porta et al. 6 months after publication.) Eubulides ( talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
From PMID 18544005, although we don't have the full article, I've never encountered any of these researchers, and this part of the abstract concerns me:
The authors' experience with 120 heavily co-medicated patients with TS confirms these findings. Long-term (mean 19 months) tetrabenazine treatment resulted in a Clinical Global Impressions of Change scale rating of 'improved' in 76% of patients. Such findings are promising and suggest that tetrabenazine may be suitable as add-on therapy in patients for whom additional suppression of tics is required.
Now, looking at Scahill et al. 2006 ( PMID 16554257), I have a hard copy, printed when it was provided from the TSA website, so I hope it's the same version that appeared in the journal. I don't have it in a computer file, only hardcopy, so I can't do a ctrl-f: scanning the article for mention of tetrabenazine, pls excuse typos. Without counting the references, the paper is 14 pages. The section on "Non-antipsychotic medications" is one page. Within that, the info on tetrabenazine is a part of one paragraph. The main thrust of the article is to assess medications by the level of empirical support.
Tetrabenazine is listed in the chart of non-antipsychotics as Category C.
The text on tetrabenazine is:
Tetrabenazine is a dopamine-depleting drug which acts by inhibiting entral vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2). It is not on the market in the United States, and only two open-label studies have been published (Jankovic & Orman, 1988; Jankovic and Beach, 1997). Taken together, these two studies treated 64 patients with TS. Of these, approimately two thirds (n = 44) showed a moderate to marked reduction in tics on a clinician-rated global severity measure. Side effects included drowsiness, parkinsonism, depressed mood, insomnia, akathisia, and a few reports of dystonias.
All papers say pretty much the same. I checked the three most recent reviews (Gilbert PMID 16970870, Singer PMID 15721825, and Swain PMID 17667475). I do have journal PDFs on these, so could electronically scan. Gilbert's only mention is to list it in a chart as Category C. Singer has one sentence: Several studies have confirmed that tetrabenazine, a benzoquinolizine derivative that depletes the presynaptic stores of catecholamines and blocks postsynaptic dopamine receptors, is effective.151 (151 is Jankovic Orman) Swain says: Tetrabenazine is a nonantipsychotic dopamine antagonist, approved as an investigational drug. Available data suggest that tetrabenazine may be useful, but more study is needed (Sandor, 2003).
The 2006 Advances in Neurology volume 99 book mentions tetrabenazine on one page, the Dure Dewolfe "Treatment of Tics" paper cited in this article, p. 193 of the book. It says "demonstrated to be of benefit", nothing more, cites Sandor, 2003.
I also checked Robertson's 2000 paper (cited in this article) because that's UK, although Robertson's papers always make me uncomfortable as she tends to report her own observation and anecdote in review papers. She has an entire paragraph (this paper covers meds extensively). She cites the same studies as the others, and adds: "There have been some suggestions that tetrabenazine plus a dopamine antagonist, which acts post-synaptically, could be used together, as they may have a more lasting effect and fewer side-effects, because both drugs can be given in lower doses (Fog and Regeur, 1986). More commonly recognized side-effects of tetrabenazine incude depression, drowsiness, fatigue, parkinsonism, insomnia, nervousness, anxiety and akathisia. In its favour, it has not been reported to cause TD." [note, presumably she means tardive dyskinesia there]
That's it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The text said
There are two things wrong with this. First, there is a difference between something being inherited and something being heritable; a condition can be highly heritable but not inherited when it is the result of a de novo mutation in the child. As worded, the sentence makes it sound like a non-inherited tic is not caused by a genetic factor, but that's not the case. Second, whether a tic is sporadic (i.e., not inherited) is independent of whether it's tourettism. Tourettism means that the tic is the result of some other condition. As near as I can make out (I'm no TS expert) there is sporadic tourettism, and inherited tourettism, and sporadic TS, and inherited TS, so the article should not define sporadic to mean tourettism.
I attempted to fix the problem by replacing the text in question with:
The first sentence cites Kremer 2007 ( PMID 18267268), a source that is not all that great but is the best I could find on the topic. Eubulides ( talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
However, Sacks's use of his preoccupation with people with disabilities as the foundation for his professional career has led many disability advocates to compare him to P. T. Barnum, whose own professional career (and its subsequent monetary profit) was based to a large degree upon his employment of PWD as 'freaks.' ... Note also the science fiction aspect to the title of Sacks's book, which frames the disabled people he writes about as 'aliens' from a different planet. One issue in the dynamic of the expert who appoints himself as the official storyteller of the experience of disability is that both the professional and financial success of the storyteller often rely upon his framing of the disabled characters as extraordinary, freakish, or abnormal. This is what disability studies scholars and disability advocates term the 'medicalization of disability' (Linton 1998, 1-2).
One charge is that his work is, in effect, a high-brow freak show that invites its audience to gawk at human oddities ... Because Sacks' life writing takes place outside the confines of biomedicine and anthropology, it may not, strictly speaking, be subject to their explicit ethical codes.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Swain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SingerBehavior
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dure
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Zinner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
Although the term unvoluntary is well-defined in this article and in the literature, it is frequently changed to involuntary here, perhaps by well-meaning editors who believe it is a typo, and don't read the text.
Please restore it whenever it is removed, as it is the correct usage. I will add an inline note. Sandy ( Talk) 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article's a rambling mess. If we're not sure Mozart had it, why is it even mentioned? 70.61.22.110 ( talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Newt
I don't think the article rambles or is a mess at all, not at all, but in rereading the Mozart discussion one thing jumped out at me: it spends too much time talking about the people who are disputing Mozart's diagnosis (Simkin, Sacks, their qualifications, etc.). This jumped out at me because I am currently looking at similar problems in Chiropractic (an article that is a rambling mess, and which goes on and on in the text about the WHO and the NCCAM and such-and-such eminent chiropractor's qualifications, in order to make that article more "persuasive"—but I digress.…) How about the following replacement for the Mozart paragraph, to address this issue? This replacement could be appended to the previous paragraph, which talks about Johnson.
Eubulides ( talk) 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, the Library of Congress has a very similar (but not identical) photograph available:
![]() | This image is available from the United States
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division under the digital ID
cph.3b26053 This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. |
![]() |
This one looks like it was done as part of the same shoot. Usage of this one's postage-stamp size would be acceptable here, under fair use. I'd rather have the big one, though, of course. I love the LoC's "Rights status not evaluated".… Eubulides ( talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The P&P image is tricky. The image’s page says “Rights status not evaluated”, which means only that P&P hasn’t done any footwork. There are different measures for determining PD status, depending on whether the image has been published. The P&P image says “Pantheon Books” (a division of Random House), so I’m inclined to believe it has been published. A published image becomes PD if it was: 1) Registered in the U.S. before 1923 or 2) Registered in the U.S. from and including 1923 through 1963, unless the copyright was renewed.
Given the date of 1935/6 (my eyes fail me), the latter may be valid. I searched at the Copyright Office, and didn’t see it registered/renewed. The caveat is that this really is a search one should do in person (anyone live in D.C.?) From a legal and/or policy standpoint, the uncertainty means it probably shouldn’t be used (I say that because I suspect such a publisher would be diligent about renewing). The lack of a reference in the archive, however, does seem to lend, if nothing else, a degree of "plausible deniability", so to speak. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Great ! OK, so if everyone agrees, I'll: remove the Mozart image, move the Johnson to where Mozart was (Cultural references), add Howard to Prognosis, and shorten the Mozart wording, making sure I combine all the refs and link over to the daughter article. Good? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Tourette syndrome #Diagnosis currently says this:
I'm finding it hard to parse that sentence because of its semicolon; was that intended to be a comma? Anyway, the sentence seems to be saying that Sydenham's chorea is one of the "other genetic conditions", but it's not genetic. Likewise for idiopathic dystonia; it might be genetic but might not. Conversely, the current wording can be read to imply that autism spectrum disorders are genetic; it's true that the mainstream opinion is that genetics are the most significant cause for ASD, but some rare cases do seem to be caused by environmental factors (see Causes of autism #Teratogens).
How about this rewrite?
Eubulides ( talk) 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know how this template works? I see it's used in the article, but I'm trying to add several of these notes in another article, but it won't work. The first note works fine, but the rest don't redirect... Thank! A ?? B ?? -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a link to Maze (film) which prominently portrays a character with Tourette syndrome Fholson 03:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I second that, as well as suggesting a link to The Tic Code and I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me. The film Maze was a good one and it portrayed accurate tics of the character the movie was based on but it did not really show how much more difficult his life really is- the person the character was based on, while his art is every bit as good, is not functioning on a level that the character in the movie did; relationships for him are very difficult to maintain and he has tics that make it difficult to be around babies, etc because he has poking and pinching tics. It also did not truly portray the difficulties he has functioning in society- being accosted by strangers who don't understand, being accused of being high or intoxicated, being asked to leave grocery stores and not return, etc. I would like to see a film that portrays it in all its reality, no matter how ugly and disturbing-- thats what people need to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.127 ( talk) 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the citation:
Kenney C, Kuo SH, Jimenez-Shahed J. "Tourette's syndrome" Am Fam Physician 2008 Mar 1;77(5):651–8. PMID 18350763.
It looks high-quality, though I haven't read it carefully. It's aimed at GPs rather than at researchers or the general public. Eubulides ( talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(And I have to remember to add Equine Tourette's, Pepper Belle the horse ... so busy with FAC.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is freely readable (yay!):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I haven't read this review, but if it's reliable it strikes me that it should be used as a candidate to check and/or replace citations to several primary studies currently used in Tourette syndrome, including Cohen & Leckman 1992 ( PMID 1517194), Bliss 1980 ( PMID 6934713), Kwak et al. 2003 ( PMID 14673893), Scahill et al. 1995 ( PMID 7872145), Miguel et al. ( PMID 10732667). Some of these studies are pretty old, and a recent reliable review would be preferable to them anyway as per WP:MEDRS.
Hope you don't mind my continuing suggestions for light bedtime reading. Eubulides ( talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Eubulides, if you come across anything on equine Tourette's, we still need to add it (example, well known race horse, Pepper Belle). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I briefly looked at it. It might be better to have a separate article on equine self-mutilation, and just briefly allude to it here. Although Dodman et al. 1994 ( PMID 8014092) say equine self-mutilation appears to be similar to Tourette's, they could just as easily have said that it's similar to trichotillomania; that is, it's a stereotypy whose specific relationship to TS is a bit speculative. Anyway, here are a couple more citations that may help in that endeavor:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Briefly mentions equine self-mutilation in the context of pathological self-injurious behavior (that is, via a different angle than TS). Freely readable.Eubulides ( talk) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Another free review to work in:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
One link should be added: http://www.tourettes-action.org.uk/ <-this is the new TSA UK website (TSA UK has changed name to Tourettes Action now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furya ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"A study of eight children, age 8–17, found that children with Tourette syndrome were quicker at processing certain mental grammar skills than are children without the condition. The abnormalities that lead to tics may also lead to "other rapid behaviors, including the cognitive processing of rule-governed forms in language and other types of procedural knowledge".[61]
Is this really a good source? How can you possibly make a conclusion on between 0.1% and 1% of the entire population (with Tourette's) of children by looking at 8? 82.17.136.199 ( talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to sign in Philipwhiuk ( talk) 11:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
This edit did things like changing "Arch Neurol." to " Archives of Neurology" (adding a wikilink, and spelling out the journal), and adding " (Review)" in places. Was this for consistency within this article only, or was it prompted by some change to some style guideline somewhere? (I ask because I mildly prefer abbreviations, non-wikilinked journal titles, and omitting "(Review)", and I hope I don't have to make similar changes to other articles. :-) Eubulides ( talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sacks - this guy has done some of the more formidible research in the disease. His work is referenced several times but not the man or his actual research which was pivotal to understanding and treating the condition, specifically with his case studies of "Witty Ticky Ray." Perhaps some inclusion? It's like having an article on Polio without mentioning Salk.
205.219.133.241 ( talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
At the same time, Sacks has faced criticism in the medical and disability studies communities. The details of some of his case studies have been questioned, [8] and Arthur K. Shapiro—described as "the father of modern tic disorder research" [9]—referring to Sacks celebrity status and that his literary publications received greater publicity than Shapiro's medical publications, said he is "a much better writer than he is a clinician". [10] Howard Kushner's A Cursing Brain? : The Histories of Tourette Syndrome, says Shapiro "contrasted his own careful clinical work with Sacks's idiosyncratic and anecdotal approach to a clinical investigation". [11] More sustained has been the critique of his political and ethical positions. Although many characterize Sacks as a "compassionate" writer and doctor, [12] [13] [14] others feel he exploits his subjects. [15] Sacks was called "the man who mistook his patients for a literary career" by British academic and disability-rights activist Tom Shakespeare, [16] and one critic called his work "a high-brow freak show". [17] Such criticism was echoed in the movie The Royal Tenenbaums, with Bill Murray's comic portrayal of "an Oliver Sacks-like neurologist who snickers openly at his weirdo subjects". [18] Sacks himself has stated "I would hope that a reading of what I write shows respect and appreciation, not any wish to expose or exhibit for the thrill," he sighs, "but it's a delicate business." [19]
The following text in Tourette syndrome #Prognosis cites two primary studies:
This research area has now been reviewed, by the following reliable secondary source:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)This review cites about 20 studies on pediatric TS and eye movements, all high-quality primary sources, including the two sources cited above. The studies cover antisaccades, visually guided saccades, memory guided saccades, and smooth pursuit eye movements. Almost all these studies report normal results in TS patients. Two studies (the two cited above, which are both by the same group) report above-average results. One study reports below-average. The review concludes:
This summary differs quite a bit from the impression that one gets from the abovequoted part of Tourette syndrome #Prognosis. I propose that we replace the above text with the following:
Eubulides ( talk) 05:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a school project on tourettes and so far ive only found stuff on George da le tourette (if thats how its spelt) can any one link more recent news on tourettes? it'd be be nice :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaihn52 ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the following two paragraphs (reproduced below) are each saying more or less the same things:
I can merge the two paragraphs together, keeping the important stuff from each one (the "semi-voluntary/un-voluntary terminology from the second, the discussion of premonitory urges in the first, the possibility of suppression, etc.). I just wanted to check here first and make sure there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you see the problem: the paragraphs are covering three different things: 1) differential diagnosis re what makes tics distinguishable from other conditions, 2) premonitory urges, and 3) involuntary/unvoluntary. I want to stick closer to the sources on one part (everything that distinguishes tics from other movement disorders, the Jankovic text). Also, what came from Jankovic vs. what came from other sources got a wee bit jumbled in the rework and the Jankovic differential diagnosis info was lost. Also, the flow is a bit off now (well, it was off before, too, as you noted :-) And, I had to remove the "suffering from" POV construct, which isn't accurate for most people with tics (impairment or distress is not part of the diagnosis), and is offensive to some. Also, with the rework, I think we can get it all in to one paragraph.
How about this:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The following review was recently published on tetrabenazine and TS:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Alas, I lack easy access both to this review, and to Scahill et al. 2006 ( PMID 16554257), which appears to be the best review on medication and TS that we have. In the U.S., tetrabenazine is an orphan drug approved for use in August (not for TS), making it more likely for the topic to come up here. Do Scahill et al. mention tetrabenazine? Either way, it looks like we should briefly mention it and cite Porta et al., assuming someone can dig it up in their library. (If it helps, my library will have access to Porta et al. 6 months after publication.) Eubulides ( talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
From PMID 18544005, although we don't have the full article, I've never encountered any of these researchers, and this part of the abstract concerns me:
The authors' experience with 120 heavily co-medicated patients with TS confirms these findings. Long-term (mean 19 months) tetrabenazine treatment resulted in a Clinical Global Impressions of Change scale rating of 'improved' in 76% of patients. Such findings are promising and suggest that tetrabenazine may be suitable as add-on therapy in patients for whom additional suppression of tics is required.
Now, looking at Scahill et al. 2006 ( PMID 16554257), I have a hard copy, printed when it was provided from the TSA website, so I hope it's the same version that appeared in the journal. I don't have it in a computer file, only hardcopy, so I can't do a ctrl-f: scanning the article for mention of tetrabenazine, pls excuse typos. Without counting the references, the paper is 14 pages. The section on "Non-antipsychotic medications" is one page. Within that, the info on tetrabenazine is a part of one paragraph. The main thrust of the article is to assess medications by the level of empirical support.
Tetrabenazine is listed in the chart of non-antipsychotics as Category C.
The text on tetrabenazine is:
Tetrabenazine is a dopamine-depleting drug which acts by inhibiting entral vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2). It is not on the market in the United States, and only two open-label studies have been published (Jankovic & Orman, 1988; Jankovic and Beach, 1997). Taken together, these two studies treated 64 patients with TS. Of these, approimately two thirds (n = 44) showed a moderate to marked reduction in tics on a clinician-rated global severity measure. Side effects included drowsiness, parkinsonism, depressed mood, insomnia, akathisia, and a few reports of dystonias.
All papers say pretty much the same. I checked the three most recent reviews (Gilbert PMID 16970870, Singer PMID 15721825, and Swain PMID 17667475). I do have journal PDFs on these, so could electronically scan. Gilbert's only mention is to list it in a chart as Category C. Singer has one sentence: Several studies have confirmed that tetrabenazine, a benzoquinolizine derivative that depletes the presynaptic stores of catecholamines and blocks postsynaptic dopamine receptors, is effective.151 (151 is Jankovic Orman) Swain says: Tetrabenazine is a nonantipsychotic dopamine antagonist, approved as an investigational drug. Available data suggest that tetrabenazine may be useful, but more study is needed (Sandor, 2003).
The 2006 Advances in Neurology volume 99 book mentions tetrabenazine on one page, the Dure Dewolfe "Treatment of Tics" paper cited in this article, p. 193 of the book. It says "demonstrated to be of benefit", nothing more, cites Sandor, 2003.
I also checked Robertson's 2000 paper (cited in this article) because that's UK, although Robertson's papers always make me uncomfortable as she tends to report her own observation and anecdote in review papers. She has an entire paragraph (this paper covers meds extensively). She cites the same studies as the others, and adds: "There have been some suggestions that tetrabenazine plus a dopamine antagonist, which acts post-synaptically, could be used together, as they may have a more lasting effect and fewer side-effects, because both drugs can be given in lower doses (Fog and Regeur, 1986). More commonly recognized side-effects of tetrabenazine incude depression, drowsiness, fatigue, parkinsonism, insomnia, nervousness, anxiety and akathisia. In its favour, it has not been reported to cause TD." [note, presumably she means tardive dyskinesia there]
That's it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The text said
There are two things wrong with this. First, there is a difference between something being inherited and something being heritable; a condition can be highly heritable but not inherited when it is the result of a de novo mutation in the child. As worded, the sentence makes it sound like a non-inherited tic is not caused by a genetic factor, but that's not the case. Second, whether a tic is sporadic (i.e., not inherited) is independent of whether it's tourettism. Tourettism means that the tic is the result of some other condition. As near as I can make out (I'm no TS expert) there is sporadic tourettism, and inherited tourettism, and sporadic TS, and inherited TS, so the article should not define sporadic to mean tourettism.
I attempted to fix the problem by replacing the text in question with:
The first sentence cites Kremer 2007 ( PMID 18267268), a source that is not all that great but is the best I could find on the topic. Eubulides ( talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
However, Sacks's use of his preoccupation with people with disabilities as the foundation for his professional career has led many disability advocates to compare him to P. T. Barnum, whose own professional career (and its subsequent monetary profit) was based to a large degree upon his employment of PWD as 'freaks.' ... Note also the science fiction aspect to the title of Sacks's book, which frames the disabled people he writes about as 'aliens' from a different planet. One issue in the dynamic of the expert who appoints himself as the official storyteller of the experience of disability is that both the professional and financial success of the storyteller often rely upon his framing of the disabled characters as extraordinary, freakish, or abnormal. This is what disability studies scholars and disability advocates term the 'medicalization of disability' (Linton 1998, 1-2).
One charge is that his work is, in effect, a high-brow freak show that invites its audience to gawk at human oddities ... Because Sacks' life writing takes place outside the confines of biomedicine and anthropology, it may not, strictly speaking, be subject to their explicit ethical codes.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Swain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).SingerBehavior
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dure
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Zinner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).