This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to User:Lova Falk 2) this is an article on the world-wide subject of differential diagnosis of depression. In this American article, the word depression is not even named
In the article, in addition to the title, the words depression or depressive are mentioned 28 times, and I probably missed a few. The article is entitled Depression (differential diagnoses), I think most people would get the point of what the subject matter is without using the word depression in every single sentence.
As far as being an American article it's American only in the fact that the person who gave a crap enough to start an article on the world-wide subject of differential diagnosis of depression is an American of ... European heritage. People from almost every single country in the world are American so I don't understand your Anti-Americanism. 7mike5000 ( talk) 03:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The introduction of this article was doubtlessly written with the honourable goal to protect patients from wrong treatment. Nonetheless, it is written in a highly WP:POV, not to say advertising, tone. Could you try to switch to a more encyclopaedic and less, well, yellow-press tone? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
References
Edgepedia, I recently replaced
Depression, one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders,[2][3] is thoughtby whom? to occur primarily due to dysregulation of neurotransmitters in the brain such as serotonin and dopamine.[4]
with
Depression, one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders,[2][3] is thought to occur primarily due to dysregulation of neurotransmitters in the brain such as serotonin and norepinephrine.[4]
Shortly afterwards, you restored the according to whom? tag. How about this, then:
In psychiatry, Depression refers to a state of low mood and reduced activity (see depression (mood)) or it may refer to major depressive disorder, one of the class of psychiatric syndromes called the mood disorders. Mood disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed classes of psychiatric disorder.[2][3] The mood disorders are thought to be associated with unusual concentrations of monoamines in the brain, and unusual brain morphology, such as, in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, reduced size of the hippocampus and part of the anterior cingulate cortex.
It clarifies (somewhat) the meaning of "depression" and stresses correlation rather than causation, removing the controversial implication that monoamine dysregulation is etiologically primary. Anthony ( talk) 06:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
7mike5000, the abstract of the article by Nutt
Nutt DJ (2008). "Relationship of neurotransmitters to the symptoms of major depressive disorder". J Clin Psychiatry 69 Suppl E1: 4–7.
PMID
18494537
discusses a relationship between depression and monoamines (i.e., they are somehow involved in the process). It does not say depression is "due to" dysregulation of monoamine systems. "Due to" implies monoamine dysregulation is the primary factor, the ultimate cause, and overstates Nutts paper. Since there are many currently competing theories about the underlying cause of depression, and the monoamines are not the only disturbed chemical system associated with depression (
HPA axis dysregulation seems to have a reliable association with mdd), I've removed mention of possible etiology from the lead.
Anthony (
talk) 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make sense: In addition of those with CFS symptoms have an undiagnosed medical or psychiatric disorder such as diabetes, thyroid disease or substance abuse. -- Hordaland ( talk) 06:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This statistic is incorrect: "Depression in the United States alone affects 17.6 million Americans each year or 1 in 6 people."....If 17.6 million is correct it represents approximately 5% of the US population or 1 in 20 people — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.72.79.10 (
talk) 17:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about rising incidence of depression in college students from the lead because it is supported only by one study, as yet unpublished in a peer reviewed journal and as such doesn't conform to WP:MEDRS. Anthony ( talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead contains 16 references to peer-reviewed articles written by experts in the field, which state in varying terms that misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis are prevalent in the mental health field. The references included are from different countries including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. There are an additional 60+ separate references to various medical conditions which state that they are often misdiagnosed as depression. Included are studies of the effect that smoking has on depression an suicide. One of the studies, conducted amongst 300,000 young, healthy soldiers shows a definitive link between suicide and cigarette smoking. The fact that smoking in itself may cause depression is often overlooked. How all this information taken from 80+ sources becomes my Point of View is irrational.
There are no sources referenced which support the supposition that what is stated in the article is a "viwepoint" as opposed to accepted facts. The facts being that differntial diagnoses of depression and comorbid medical conditions which may exacerbate depression are often missed. The consequences for those on the receiving end are severe upto and including suicide.
A collegiate process does not mean that every irrational and unsupported position has to be humored. No valid argument has been made that the article, as it now stands is my "Point of View". Unless the individual/s supporting the position as stated in the aformentioned tag can come up with references then there is no debate. I have not only made a cogent argument but a definitive one. The tag is an unnecessary and unwarranted detraction. 7mike5000 ( talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding smoking, the article states that the more you smoke, the more likely you are to get depressed. What if it's the other way around? The more depressed you are, the more cigarettes you smoke? It makes a lot more sense to me, and it's happening to me as we speak. Not saying that smoking cannot cause depression, but look at it from a different point of view. I have no sources, but I believe that it should be mentioned as a possible flaw in the study. This is my first contribution to a talk page, I am sorry for any possible faults with my edit. 62.61.157.216 ( talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Thomas Mortensen
80+ references stating that misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis is common. Unless I am mistaken Wikipedia has not been sold to my pal User:Edgepedia in England. "I would imagine there's a counterargument" unless you can make one the tag is coming off. Just slapping tags because you feel like it doesn't cut it. The neutrality is disputed by who? Yourself. Please see the discussion on the talk page. I have you not. State your case already. NO CASE NO TAG. There has to be a valid basis. Same with the merge tag. Two different topics. the mood called depression and medical conditions that might be misdaignosed as depression 7mike5000 ( talk) 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Two separate topics cut and dry. What I started was an article on the differential diagnoses of depression. Simple elucidation: It is not about the mood, it is about other conditions, a majority of which are medical in nature, which may be and have been misdiagnosed as various types of depression.
Should it be retitled as: A list of medical conditions and other psychiatric disorders which have been misdiagnosed as a depressive disorders due to an inadequate screening process or a lack of knowledge ?
I started this article because for whatever the reason I have an altruistic nature, it does serve a purpose and provides information and I believe in that strongly enough, that despite the intense aggravation I'm responding to what I quite frankly think are some irrational people.
I would love for somebody to explain in a rational argument how articles such as the following are somehow deemed acceptable:
How does this Fart lighting warrant a "stand alone" article yet this: Depression (differential diagnoses) does not? I personally belive that Fart lighting should be merged into [[Fart]]:{{Merge to|Fart|discuss=Talk:Fart#Fart Lighting Merge |date=August 2010}} Is it a silly example? Something that affects untold numbers of people, somehow doesn't warrant a stand alone article, but Fart lighting does, that's the epitome of ludicrousness.
"FWIW realistically, in a general adult outpatient population of a first world country - in reviewing depressive symptoms, the chances of physical illnesses masquerading as depression (without other signs) are low." Need to find a ref for this though :) Casliber ( talk
I provided 80+ refernces that state otherwise, from such sources as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Harvard Medical School.
I have provided multiple references that state many of the listed condtions are underdiagnosed, that a conservative 10% of those with a diagnosed mental illness actually have a medical condition cauising their symptoms. Upwards of 50% of patients in psychiatric facilities may have an undiagnosed medical condition that is causing or exacerbating their condition. I think the findings of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Harvard Medical School carry a little weight. These tags are a detraction, I don't think they were placed there in good faith, I can state my position and refernce it. 7mike5000 ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't merge to Depression (mood)
Here's the Merck Manual on differential diagnosis of depression: Succinct, and much more helpful, could be referenced in article on Depression (mood)
99.190.133.143 ( talk) 18:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Might usefully be retitled as:
Medical or psychiatric disorders which have been misdiagnosed as a depressive disorders.
The thrust of the article is better captured by that title. And, an article like this with a title like that does have value.
The current "Differential diagnosis" title is more appropriate for a succinct article focused directly on tests, etc., that are appropriate to clinical practice (like the Merck manual section cited & quoted above). The Merck Manual seems to be saying there is no definitive lab test readily available -- patients are trialed empirically on antidepressants to see if they improve.
The current article is somewhat sensational in tone, e.g., the brain-tumor anecdote deserves a paragraph in a section on one-off spectacular missed diagnoses; elevating it to a position in the summary above the table of contents creates more of a tabloid article feel, and you can't help suspecting that the omission of all of the data facing the clinicians before the surgery has been swept away in an ex-post-facto one-sided statement of what may have been a challenging diagnosis before the end results were known.
99.190.133.143 ( talk) 18:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen (another) Wikipedia article using so much italics and [small text]. I'll be removing some of it. -- Hordaland ( talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any conclusive study done that links longterm pain conditions, even mild ones, to longterm depression? Im talking specificly about pain conditions, ones that have no readily obvious source. A person with a sensory processing disorder, for instance, suffering increased pain would be a good example. There should not be any other major source which could be contributing as well. I have been looking but im not too good with search engines, or with using words, so just tossing this out there incase a more interested party would like to confirm or deny the validity of this assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Valuable article, but seems entirely one-sided. Turns a blind eye to the significant problem of overlooking actual depression which is too often diagnosed and treated as something else, often with disastrous effects for the patient.
Where syndromes share symptoms, differential diagnosis is digging out which is which. NPOV is abdicated when only the failures to diagnose anything-but-depression is presented, and failure to diagnose depression is not. NPOV responsibility is abrogated when the article suggests by omission that depression is never the overlooked diagnosis.
Needs a thorough rework to restore balance.
Often, depression masquerades as something else, is diagnosed as the something else, and treated for the something else.
Misdiagnosis of depression as not-depression is double damaging to the patient:
Examples are legion. E.g., both thyroid deficiency and depression can cause forgetfulness, fatigue, sleep disturbance, etc. http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/depression-the-thyroid-and-hormones?page=2 Both are often misdiagnosed for the other. Life-threatening iatrogenic osteoporosis results when thyroid is inappropriately prescribed due to overlooking the depression diagnosis and prescribed to treat a thyroid condition which the patient did not have in the first place (but develops in adaptation to the inappropriate medication).
Before an article can claim to treat the topic of differential diagnosis of depression, it needs to lay out the framework of diagnosis of depression in general. As this article and the main article on Depression (mood) both point out, it's a tough diagnosis in any case.
Differential diagnosis only makes sense when cast against the background of general diagnosis.
For diagnosis of depression in the first instance, a good place to start would be the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 criteria referenced in the main article on Depression (mood). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/286759-differential — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
213.109.230.96 ( talk) 05:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
17.6million or 1 in 6 Americans is surely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.46.194 ( talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Depression (differential diagnoses). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This videotape, featuring Jeffrey A Applebaum on the "University of California Television" website, Look Behind the “Mask of Depression”, is part of their UC Grand Rounds series on various medical topics, mostly psychological. The presentation is 55 minutes, 45 seconds long. In it, he presents a simple to use algorithm with which he readily differentiates between anxiety, unipolar depression, bipolar depression, and ADHD. Some of you may find this interesting. http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Look-Behind-the-Mask-of-Depression-19463 Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
.......The following citation has nothing to do with my comment...... Wordreader ( talk) 16:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Depression (differential diagnoses). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to User:Lova Falk 2) this is an article on the world-wide subject of differential diagnosis of depression. In this American article, the word depression is not even named
In the article, in addition to the title, the words depression or depressive are mentioned 28 times, and I probably missed a few. The article is entitled Depression (differential diagnoses), I think most people would get the point of what the subject matter is without using the word depression in every single sentence.
As far as being an American article it's American only in the fact that the person who gave a crap enough to start an article on the world-wide subject of differential diagnosis of depression is an American of ... European heritage. People from almost every single country in the world are American so I don't understand your Anti-Americanism. 7mike5000 ( talk) 03:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The introduction of this article was doubtlessly written with the honourable goal to protect patients from wrong treatment. Nonetheless, it is written in a highly WP:POV, not to say advertising, tone. Could you try to switch to a more encyclopaedic and less, well, yellow-press tone? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
References
Edgepedia, I recently replaced
Depression, one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders,[2][3] is thoughtby whom? to occur primarily due to dysregulation of neurotransmitters in the brain such as serotonin and dopamine.[4]
with
Depression, one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders,[2][3] is thought to occur primarily due to dysregulation of neurotransmitters in the brain such as serotonin and norepinephrine.[4]
Shortly afterwards, you restored the according to whom? tag. How about this, then:
In psychiatry, Depression refers to a state of low mood and reduced activity (see depression (mood)) or it may refer to major depressive disorder, one of the class of psychiatric syndromes called the mood disorders. Mood disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed classes of psychiatric disorder.[2][3] The mood disorders are thought to be associated with unusual concentrations of monoamines in the brain, and unusual brain morphology, such as, in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, reduced size of the hippocampus and part of the anterior cingulate cortex.
It clarifies (somewhat) the meaning of "depression" and stresses correlation rather than causation, removing the controversial implication that monoamine dysregulation is etiologically primary. Anthony ( talk) 06:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
7mike5000, the abstract of the article by Nutt
Nutt DJ (2008). "Relationship of neurotransmitters to the symptoms of major depressive disorder". J Clin Psychiatry 69 Suppl E1: 4–7.
PMID
18494537
discusses a relationship between depression and monoamines (i.e., they are somehow involved in the process). It does not say depression is "due to" dysregulation of monoamine systems. "Due to" implies monoamine dysregulation is the primary factor, the ultimate cause, and overstates Nutts paper. Since there are many currently competing theories about the underlying cause of depression, and the monoamines are not the only disturbed chemical system associated with depression (
HPA axis dysregulation seems to have a reliable association with mdd), I've removed mention of possible etiology from the lead.
Anthony (
talk) 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make sense: In addition of those with CFS symptoms have an undiagnosed medical or psychiatric disorder such as diabetes, thyroid disease or substance abuse. -- Hordaland ( talk) 06:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This statistic is incorrect: "Depression in the United States alone affects 17.6 million Americans each year or 1 in 6 people."....If 17.6 million is correct it represents approximately 5% of the US population or 1 in 20 people — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.72.79.10 (
talk) 17:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about rising incidence of depression in college students from the lead because it is supported only by one study, as yet unpublished in a peer reviewed journal and as such doesn't conform to WP:MEDRS. Anthony ( talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead contains 16 references to peer-reviewed articles written by experts in the field, which state in varying terms that misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis are prevalent in the mental health field. The references included are from different countries including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. There are an additional 60+ separate references to various medical conditions which state that they are often misdiagnosed as depression. Included are studies of the effect that smoking has on depression an suicide. One of the studies, conducted amongst 300,000 young, healthy soldiers shows a definitive link between suicide and cigarette smoking. The fact that smoking in itself may cause depression is often overlooked. How all this information taken from 80+ sources becomes my Point of View is irrational.
There are no sources referenced which support the supposition that what is stated in the article is a "viwepoint" as opposed to accepted facts. The facts being that differntial diagnoses of depression and comorbid medical conditions which may exacerbate depression are often missed. The consequences for those on the receiving end are severe upto and including suicide.
A collegiate process does not mean that every irrational and unsupported position has to be humored. No valid argument has been made that the article, as it now stands is my "Point of View". Unless the individual/s supporting the position as stated in the aformentioned tag can come up with references then there is no debate. I have not only made a cogent argument but a definitive one. The tag is an unnecessary and unwarranted detraction. 7mike5000 ( talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding smoking, the article states that the more you smoke, the more likely you are to get depressed. What if it's the other way around? The more depressed you are, the more cigarettes you smoke? It makes a lot more sense to me, and it's happening to me as we speak. Not saying that smoking cannot cause depression, but look at it from a different point of view. I have no sources, but I believe that it should be mentioned as a possible flaw in the study. This is my first contribution to a talk page, I am sorry for any possible faults with my edit. 62.61.157.216 ( talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Thomas Mortensen
80+ references stating that misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis is common. Unless I am mistaken Wikipedia has not been sold to my pal User:Edgepedia in England. "I would imagine there's a counterargument" unless you can make one the tag is coming off. Just slapping tags because you feel like it doesn't cut it. The neutrality is disputed by who? Yourself. Please see the discussion on the talk page. I have you not. State your case already. NO CASE NO TAG. There has to be a valid basis. Same with the merge tag. Two different topics. the mood called depression and medical conditions that might be misdaignosed as depression 7mike5000 ( talk) 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Two separate topics cut and dry. What I started was an article on the differential diagnoses of depression. Simple elucidation: It is not about the mood, it is about other conditions, a majority of which are medical in nature, which may be and have been misdiagnosed as various types of depression.
Should it be retitled as: A list of medical conditions and other psychiatric disorders which have been misdiagnosed as a depressive disorders due to an inadequate screening process or a lack of knowledge ?
I started this article because for whatever the reason I have an altruistic nature, it does serve a purpose and provides information and I believe in that strongly enough, that despite the intense aggravation I'm responding to what I quite frankly think are some irrational people.
I would love for somebody to explain in a rational argument how articles such as the following are somehow deemed acceptable:
How does this Fart lighting warrant a "stand alone" article yet this: Depression (differential diagnoses) does not? I personally belive that Fart lighting should be merged into [[Fart]]:{{Merge to|Fart|discuss=Talk:Fart#Fart Lighting Merge |date=August 2010}} Is it a silly example? Something that affects untold numbers of people, somehow doesn't warrant a stand alone article, but Fart lighting does, that's the epitome of ludicrousness.
"FWIW realistically, in a general adult outpatient population of a first world country - in reviewing depressive symptoms, the chances of physical illnesses masquerading as depression (without other signs) are low." Need to find a ref for this though :) Casliber ( talk
I provided 80+ refernces that state otherwise, from such sources as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Harvard Medical School.
I have provided multiple references that state many of the listed condtions are underdiagnosed, that a conservative 10% of those with a diagnosed mental illness actually have a medical condition cauising their symptoms. Upwards of 50% of patients in psychiatric facilities may have an undiagnosed medical condition that is causing or exacerbating their condition. I think the findings of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Harvard Medical School carry a little weight. These tags are a detraction, I don't think they were placed there in good faith, I can state my position and refernce it. 7mike5000 ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't merge to Depression (mood)
Here's the Merck Manual on differential diagnosis of depression: Succinct, and much more helpful, could be referenced in article on Depression (mood)
99.190.133.143 ( talk) 18:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Might usefully be retitled as:
Medical or psychiatric disorders which have been misdiagnosed as a depressive disorders.
The thrust of the article is better captured by that title. And, an article like this with a title like that does have value.
The current "Differential diagnosis" title is more appropriate for a succinct article focused directly on tests, etc., that are appropriate to clinical practice (like the Merck manual section cited & quoted above). The Merck Manual seems to be saying there is no definitive lab test readily available -- patients are trialed empirically on antidepressants to see if they improve.
The current article is somewhat sensational in tone, e.g., the brain-tumor anecdote deserves a paragraph in a section on one-off spectacular missed diagnoses; elevating it to a position in the summary above the table of contents creates more of a tabloid article feel, and you can't help suspecting that the omission of all of the data facing the clinicians before the surgery has been swept away in an ex-post-facto one-sided statement of what may have been a challenging diagnosis before the end results were known.
99.190.133.143 ( talk) 18:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen (another) Wikipedia article using so much italics and [small text]. I'll be removing some of it. -- Hordaland ( talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any conclusive study done that links longterm pain conditions, even mild ones, to longterm depression? Im talking specificly about pain conditions, ones that have no readily obvious source. A person with a sensory processing disorder, for instance, suffering increased pain would be a good example. There should not be any other major source which could be contributing as well. I have been looking but im not too good with search engines, or with using words, so just tossing this out there incase a more interested party would like to confirm or deny the validity of this assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Valuable article, but seems entirely one-sided. Turns a blind eye to the significant problem of overlooking actual depression which is too often diagnosed and treated as something else, often with disastrous effects for the patient.
Where syndromes share symptoms, differential diagnosis is digging out which is which. NPOV is abdicated when only the failures to diagnose anything-but-depression is presented, and failure to diagnose depression is not. NPOV responsibility is abrogated when the article suggests by omission that depression is never the overlooked diagnosis.
Needs a thorough rework to restore balance.
Often, depression masquerades as something else, is diagnosed as the something else, and treated for the something else.
Misdiagnosis of depression as not-depression is double damaging to the patient:
Examples are legion. E.g., both thyroid deficiency and depression can cause forgetfulness, fatigue, sleep disturbance, etc. http://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/depression-the-thyroid-and-hormones?page=2 Both are often misdiagnosed for the other. Life-threatening iatrogenic osteoporosis results when thyroid is inappropriately prescribed due to overlooking the depression diagnosis and prescribed to treat a thyroid condition which the patient did not have in the first place (but develops in adaptation to the inappropriate medication).
Before an article can claim to treat the topic of differential diagnosis of depression, it needs to lay out the framework of diagnosis of depression in general. As this article and the main article on Depression (mood) both point out, it's a tough diagnosis in any case.
Differential diagnosis only makes sense when cast against the background of general diagnosis.
For diagnosis of depression in the first instance, a good place to start would be the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 criteria referenced in the main article on Depression (mood). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/286759-differential — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
213.109.230.96 ( talk) 05:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
17.6million or 1 in 6 Americans is surely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.46.194 ( talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Depression (differential diagnoses). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This videotape, featuring Jeffrey A Applebaum on the "University of California Television" website, Look Behind the “Mask of Depression”, is part of their UC Grand Rounds series on various medical topics, mostly psychological. The presentation is 55 minutes, 45 seconds long. In it, he presents a simple to use algorithm with which he readily differentiates between anxiety, unipolar depression, bipolar depression, and ADHD. Some of you may find this interesting. http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Look-Behind-the-Mask-of-Depression-19463 Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
.......The following citation has nothing to do with my comment...... Wordreader ( talk) 16:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Depression (differential diagnoses). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)