 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The application of this prosthesis in a new clinical situation is a significant development. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- please do read WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTNEWS; we are an encyclopedia and we don't hop on every piece of news. Only time will tell if this is "significant". We'll know via review articles in the biomedical literature. Jytdog ( talk) 10:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note, consolidating discussions from other article Talk pages where this content is being edit-warred in
here and
here and at user talk page
here
Jytdog (
talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The BBC is a reputable source. So, I think, are The Engineer and Manchester University. This is not "any piece of news". Google has found 110 articles about it so far. It may, of course turn out to be less significant than it appears. It's only one patient. But that does not mean it should not be mentioned. According to Optometry Today "Those involved in the trial say it may be the most significant development in treating dry AMD vision loss in a number of years". (
talk) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes news often appears in many places. The key thing is WP:NOTNEWS which you are not addressing. Also, please do read the part of MEDRS called WP:MEDREV - starting things is very, very different from finishing them, and is different from having a product actually available for use. Outside of that, it is just another experiment that may or not ever matter - may not ever be available for people to actually use. Jytdog ( talk) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The BBC is a reputable source. So, I think, are The Engineer and Manchester University. This is not "any piece of news". Google has found 110 articles about it so far. It may, of course turn out to be less significant than it appears. It's only one patient. But that does not mean it should not be mentioned. According to Optometry Today "Those involved in the trial say it may be the most significant development in treating dry AMD vision loss in a number of years". (
talk) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
These are matters of judgement. My judgement is that this is a sufficiently significant development to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. The report is factual. It doesn't suggest that the prosthesis is available to everyone today. The policy does not say that news should never be included. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Few things are black and white, it is true. We can definitely wait and see what others have to say - there is
WP:NODEADLINE in Wikipedia. As we wait for other input, let me ask you - why do you think anyway will care about this factoid ten years from now? Why do you think the event is significant and encyclopedia-worthy? I really don't understand, and would like to hear your thoughts.
Jytdog (
talk) 16:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is a single case. The prior wording was promotional and undue weight IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- if it proves to be repeatable - then it will change the prospects for people with Macular degeneration - for whom at present there is no treatment - very considerably. It's a common condition and growing more common with an aging population. There isn't much about the epidemiology in the article, but
this suggests prevalence might be more than 3% of the population over 50 We aren't talking about medication here, so there is no obvious reason why this success should not be repeated, though clearly we will have to wait and see. If it can't be replicated - I suppose the whole bionic eye development will be regarded as a dead end. There doesn't appear to be anything much else going on for this condition. But the kit seems to work for people with Retinitis Pigmentosa and is now quite widely available. RP, epidemiologically - and commercially - is a very different proposition. AMD would take bionics into a mass market. It would put a strain on health systems - but perhaps reduce the need for social care. We would need a lot more eye surgeons. I should stress that I am not a clinician. My area of interest is healthcare systems. Fundamentally it's the impact on health systems that make this so important. At present there isn't much done for people with AMD.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- yes yes all that is true of a zillion things, where there is not a good treatment and there is some early stage work that the press goes gonzo over. in the real world there is a very high chance that it will never become a treatment, regardless of all the hype. today the actual impact is zero. it is one big maybe. Wikipedia is an encylopedia - we don't follow the hype. Jytdog ( talk) 22:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia tells me "No medical or surgical treatment " is available for dry AMD. Is it wrong? 180 people with RP have been fitted with these bionic eyes. It's now a recognised treatment - but rather expensive - for that. I can't see any reason suggested in the very widespread coverage that it won't work for AMD. In fact it might work better for AMD than RP.
There is now a little more detail about what exactly is going on in Manchester: Professor Stanga said "As far as I am concerned, the first results of the trial are a total success and I look forward to treating more dry AMD patients with the Argus II as part of this trial. We are currently recruiting four more patients to the trial in Manchester." [1] Rathfelder ( talk) 22:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Bionic eye gives sight back to retired engineer". Engineering and Technology Magazine. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
- Because something is useful to treat Y does not mean it will work to treat X. that is why there are clinical trials, which are experiments with uncertain outcomes. Jytdog ( talk) 22:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course. But this is engineering, not medicine. There are fewer unknowns. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- that is not accurate. electrode >> retina >> retinal nerve >> some other stuff in the brain I forget >> visual cortex >> experience of vision. biomedical engineering. still medicine. Jytdog ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
But we understand what is going on in considerably more detail than we do with most medication. Also patients cannot go out and buy this over the internet so there is less risk of the article doing damage. When there is an earthquake, or a terrorist atrocity, W does not wait until everything is analysed in peer reviewed journals before producing an article. The rest of the world thinks this is significant. As more details are emerging - like this in Optics - I think we can produce a more balanced report. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- would you please thread your comments? Jytdog ( talk) 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- You are writing as though you still have not read
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:MEDREV and taken them on board.
Jytdog (
talk) 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've read it. Many times. It says " Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." You don't appear to be engaging with the points I make. A tone of condescension is not helpful. The random article I picked just now was this
Wanpaoshan Incident. I think this event is noteworthy as that. And I am not writing an article - just adding to what is known about existing articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Other stuff exists is a terrible argument. I am not commenting on that article, but lots of parts of Wikipedia suck. And that article has nothing to do with health. Jytdog ( talk) 13:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bottom line here, is that we don't know if Argus will be a useful treatment for dry MD or not. There may be lots of ups and downs (or maybe nothing more at all) as we learn about whether it will be or not, but until the definitive clinical trials happen and are reviewed by regulators and in the biomedical literature, claims about its utility are all
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not "accepted knowledge." We can maybe include something in a "research" section but the content would just need to say that Argus is being tested in that indication and not make any claims about efficacy or safety or even "promise", which we don't know yet.
Jytdog (
talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that approach. Perhaps we should comment on the publicity along those lines? Rathfelder ( talk) 16:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've read it. Many times. It says " Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." You don't appear to be engaging with the points I make. A tone of condescension is not helpful. The random article I picked just now was this
Wanpaoshan Incident. I think this event is noteworthy as that. And I am not writing an article - just adding to what is known about existing articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The rule about secondary sources doesn't apply to you then? You can quote directly from the FDA and turn your nose up at the Daily Mail, which is a secondary source? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please check WP:RSN - The Daily Mail is universally considered in WP as an utterly crap source. You really need to calm down. Jytdog ( talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete SEWilco ( talk) 01:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The application of this prosthesis in a new clinical situation is a significant development. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- please do read WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTNEWS; we are an encyclopedia and we don't hop on every piece of news. Only time will tell if this is "significant". We'll know via review articles in the biomedical literature. Jytdog ( talk) 10:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note, consolidating discussions from other article Talk pages where this content is being edit-warred in
here and
here and at user talk page
here
Jytdog (
talk) 12:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The BBC is a reputable source. So, I think, are The Engineer and Manchester University. This is not "any piece of news". Google has found 110 articles about it so far. It may, of course turn out to be less significant than it appears. It's only one patient. But that does not mean it should not be mentioned. According to Optometry Today "Those involved in the trial say it may be the most significant development in treating dry AMD vision loss in a number of years". (
talk) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes news often appears in many places. The key thing is WP:NOTNEWS which you are not addressing. Also, please do read the part of MEDRS called WP:MEDREV - starting things is very, very different from finishing them, and is different from having a product actually available for use. Outside of that, it is just another experiment that may or not ever matter - may not ever be available for people to actually use. Jytdog ( talk) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The BBC is a reputable source. So, I think, are The Engineer and Manchester University. This is not "any piece of news". Google has found 110 articles about it so far. It may, of course turn out to be less significant than it appears. It's only one patient. But that does not mean it should not be mentioned. According to Optometry Today "Those involved in the trial say it may be the most significant development in treating dry AMD vision loss in a number of years". (
talk) 12:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
These are matters of judgement. My judgement is that this is a sufficiently significant development to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. The report is factual. It doesn't suggest that the prosthesis is available to everyone today. The policy does not say that news should never be included. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Few things are black and white, it is true. We can definitely wait and see what others have to say - there is
WP:NODEADLINE in Wikipedia. As we wait for other input, let me ask you - why do you think anyway will care about this factoid ten years from now? Why do you think the event is significant and encyclopedia-worthy? I really don't understand, and would like to hear your thoughts.
Jytdog (
talk) 16:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is a single case. The prior wording was promotional and undue weight IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- if it proves to be repeatable - then it will change the prospects for people with Macular degeneration - for whom at present there is no treatment - very considerably. It's a common condition and growing more common with an aging population. There isn't much about the epidemiology in the article, but
this suggests prevalence might be more than 3% of the population over 50 We aren't talking about medication here, so there is no obvious reason why this success should not be repeated, though clearly we will have to wait and see. If it can't be replicated - I suppose the whole bionic eye development will be regarded as a dead end. There doesn't appear to be anything much else going on for this condition. But the kit seems to work for people with Retinitis Pigmentosa and is now quite widely available. RP, epidemiologically - and commercially - is a very different proposition. AMD would take bionics into a mass market. It would put a strain on health systems - but perhaps reduce the need for social care. We would need a lot more eye surgeons. I should stress that I am not a clinician. My area of interest is healthcare systems. Fundamentally it's the impact on health systems that make this so important. At present there isn't much done for people with AMD.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- yes yes all that is true of a zillion things, where there is not a good treatment and there is some early stage work that the press goes gonzo over. in the real world there is a very high chance that it will never become a treatment, regardless of all the hype. today the actual impact is zero. it is one big maybe. Wikipedia is an encylopedia - we don't follow the hype. Jytdog ( talk) 22:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia tells me "No medical or surgical treatment " is available for dry AMD. Is it wrong? 180 people with RP have been fitted with these bionic eyes. It's now a recognised treatment - but rather expensive - for that. I can't see any reason suggested in the very widespread coverage that it won't work for AMD. In fact it might work better for AMD than RP.
There is now a little more detail about what exactly is going on in Manchester: Professor Stanga said "As far as I am concerned, the first results of the trial are a total success and I look forward to treating more dry AMD patients with the Argus II as part of this trial. We are currently recruiting four more patients to the trial in Manchester." [1] Rathfelder ( talk) 22:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Bionic eye gives sight back to retired engineer". Engineering and Technology Magazine. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
- Because something is useful to treat Y does not mean it will work to treat X. that is why there are clinical trials, which are experiments with uncertain outcomes. Jytdog ( talk) 22:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course. But this is engineering, not medicine. There are fewer unknowns. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- that is not accurate. electrode >> retina >> retinal nerve >> some other stuff in the brain I forget >> visual cortex >> experience of vision. biomedical engineering. still medicine. Jytdog ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
But we understand what is going on in considerably more detail than we do with most medication. Also patients cannot go out and buy this over the internet so there is less risk of the article doing damage. When there is an earthquake, or a terrorist atrocity, W does not wait until everything is analysed in peer reviewed journals before producing an article. The rest of the world thinks this is significant. As more details are emerging - like this in Optics - I think we can produce a more balanced report. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- would you please thread your comments? Jytdog ( talk) 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- You are writing as though you still have not read
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:MEDREV and taken them on board.
Jytdog (
talk) 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've read it. Many times. It says " Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." You don't appear to be engaging with the points I make. A tone of condescension is not helpful. The random article I picked just now was this
Wanpaoshan Incident. I think this event is noteworthy as that. And I am not writing an article - just adding to what is known about existing articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Other stuff exists is a terrible argument. I am not commenting on that article, but lots of parts of Wikipedia suck. And that article has nothing to do with health. Jytdog ( talk) 13:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bottom line here, is that we don't know if Argus will be a useful treatment for dry MD or not. There may be lots of ups and downs (or maybe nothing more at all) as we learn about whether it will be or not, but until the definitive clinical trials happen and are reviewed by regulators and in the biomedical literature, claims about its utility are all
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not "accepted knowledge." We can maybe include something in a "research" section but the content would just need to say that Argus is being tested in that indication and not make any claims about efficacy or safety or even "promise", which we don't know yet.
Jytdog (
talk) 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that approach. Perhaps we should comment on the publicity along those lines? Rathfelder ( talk) 16:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've read it. Many times. It says " Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." You don't appear to be engaging with the points I make. A tone of condescension is not helpful. The random article I picked just now was this
Wanpaoshan Incident. I think this event is noteworthy as that. And I am not writing an article - just adding to what is known about existing articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The rule about secondary sources doesn't apply to you then? You can quote directly from the FDA and turn your nose up at the Daily Mail, which is a secondary source? Rathfelder ( talk) 20:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please check WP:RSN - The Daily Mail is universally considered in WP as an utterly crap source. You really need to calm down. Jytdog ( talk) 20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete SEWilco ( talk) 01:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)