Talk:Baby colic

message: Just wondering if there has been any correlation with colic to incidences of shaken baby syndrome. It's a pretty terrible thing and I think most people should have enough common sense not to shake a baby (not to be confused with making a swinging motion) to soothe the child) but I also could see where a sleep deprived person with temper problems or self control issues might do something like that; even though it is certainly not an excuse to do it, I wonder if durress (spelling?) might also be a problem caused by colic (which could result in shaken baby syndrome) and should therefore be mentioned here. What do you think?
*  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.151 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite a source and add the information if there's a reliable source for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]]

message: Hey, there was a broken link to Pediatric Research article.  I found the article (took a bit of work, the reference wasn't very helpful), but there isn't a clear url to link to.  Maybe this works?:
http://www.pedresearch.org/pt/re/pedresearch/abstract.00006450-200101000-00015.htm
Anyway, it seems like proper references would be better, they are more stable.  So I put one in for this article.  Trouble is, it makes a bit of a mess for the footnoting.  But I can't fix this now.  So sorry, but there you go.  Peace and Love.  Pigkeeper 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:Cite web. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link fix

message: I removed the following text because it is has no medical references, but appears to be giving medical advice and making scientific claims. -- Beland 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colic can be caused by allergies in the mother and/or baby.  If breastfeeding, the mother's diet can be restricted: some mothers omit dairy, egg, soy, and processed foods (including spices and caffeine) from their diet, drink only water and increase their intake of other foods and supplements for missing nutrients such as calcium.  This will not necessarily "cure" colic, which seems to cure itself after a period of time, but it may reduce the symptoms.
Isn't it ridiculous to even suggest that whether you have dairy in your diet affects the amount of dairy in your breast milk??? ... For those of you who put that he article, and thus probably weren't breast fed enough yourselves, milk is dairy.
And regarding the acid reflux theory, apparently leaving the baby on its back makes it worse, while putting them on their stomach basically kills them... so has no-one thought to prop the baby's upper-half up on a pillow? I have acid reflux and that always helps me sleep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allergies - unreferenced 

message: More than 10 years ago, I read an article that suggested that the entire concept of "baby colic" is utter nonsense according to modern medicine.  The article suggested that doctors, on the aggregate, now consider "colic" to be a folkloric term* for any of a great number of conditions which can cause infant discomfort and lead to extended crying, and that continuing to think of a baby as "colicky" instead of suffering from a specific and identifiable and treatable problem is in fact quite dangerous.  I find it a little disturbing that a decade later this WP article neither takes the same position, nor, alternatively, cites a reliable source against this view and in favor of "baby colic" as a legitimate medical diagnosis.
* Cf. "the vapors", "leeching", "humours", "bad air" and various other discredited medical ideas from the Victorian age and earlier.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I blame you for not entering the relevant information into the article with a citation. 70.112.162.19 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old wives' tale? 

message: In the Treatment section, there is reference to some questionable success future parents may have when attending a Happiest Baby course.  The citation just links to a study on happiestbaby.com.  Regardless of who wrote the actual study, happiestbaby.com can't cite itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.26.119 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a marketing page for Happiest Baby Class 

message: "Tooting"? "Pooping"? What cutesy site for mothers was this text cut'n'pasted from? 218.191.194.125 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic Language 

message: "...your baby..." and "All of us...."
Please change this section to use neutral, encyclopedic tone, not the tone of literature directed to calm parents, useful as that may be in another context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.43.24 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: There's a section about the effect on the family. One section mentions at-risk parents, in such a way that it seems to suggest that only babies whose parents are drug addicts or teenagers get Colic. It just seems a way off what you would expect from a quality encyclopaedia, and a little insensitive. Suggested re-wording:
(groups of parents particularly at risk) include teens, drug addicts, military families, foster parents, parents of premies and parents of multiples. Families living in dense housing projects, such as apartment blocks, may also suffer strained relationships with neighbors and landlords if their babies cry loudly for extended periods of time each day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.146 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on family 

message: The sentence "A medicine often suggested for use is infacol." links to the manufacturers website, this seems somewhat non-neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smason79 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  infacol link 

message: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1679399
"Conclusion and Relevance The presence of migraine in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years was associated with a history of infantile colic. Additional longitudinal studies are required."
This should be included in "Causes" indicating a correlation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.82.212 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association Between Childhood Migraine and History of Infantile Colic 

message: 75.152.124.107 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if you are trying to slowly blank the page. You cut it down to a quarter of its size with skeptical reviews. 75.152.124.107 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: You are off topic

message: "Dietary changes by infants are generally not needed."  As ref says "The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Nutrition does not recommend changing to soy formula in the management of colic" and "Feeding changes usually are not advised." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What wording do you think would be better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored this content

message: This article needs attention. Colic is NOT crying for three hours aday! Crying is what a baby does when it feels discomfort or pain. In this case it feels pain, and the pain is caused by the colic. And three hours, times three days times .... that's a rule of thumb NOT a definition! Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try reading the sources or do you have high quality sources that say different? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any amount of sources is going to help if what we want to defend that colic is "episodes of crying for more than three hours a day for more than three days a week for three weeks". Surely YOU OF ALL PEOPLE would know that that is wrong. Crying is the manifestation, not the condition. If you look up migraine, it does not say it is an "episode of whimpering, irritability, nausea, sometimes accompanied by vomiting". Those are manifestations and symptoms, they are not the condition itself. I trust you can see the difference between cause, symptoms, outword manifestations and behavioural changes. As for the 3 by 3 by 3, that's the kind of stuff you say in popular magazines and tv shows and parenting websites. You will also find in those sources lots of stuff on "the common flu" and "seasonal flu", yet as a medically trained person you woud know that that is just a convenient way to handle the terminology. Wessel made up that magic one-sze-fits-all 3x3x3 formula in the 50s. If in 60 years we have nothing better to offer, then it is really a sad endictment of the progress of science. But it does not have to be - there a are plenty of proper good sources out there. So, which one would we rather emulate - a popular magazine or a Lancet? 
;So, the least we can do is say what we know and that is that medical science still does not know what colic is or what causes it. I am sure that we can agree on that. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best if suggestions to improve the article include sources (WP:MEDRS) that would be used to support changes, rather than pontificate on the subject itself. Yobol (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Yobol. I am not pontificating. Yes, I could add sources, but I would have thought people who write about medicine would know these sources by hard, just like I know what a good source is in areas of my expertise. What would be the point of me searching for such sources and then be told that these are known fringe sources, or known for a speficic type of opinion or position? I did find quite a few sources with defintions of colic, some pointing to a definition by a certain Ronald Barr, who appears to know what he is talking about. I see now that Barr is cited three times in the artcle, which confirms my assessment that he is a good source, which means that sources are there, it is merely a question of reading the article and fixing what is wrong with it. I could easily go and fetch Barr's definition and put it right on top and rephrase 3x3x3 to indicate its value as a an indication, a symptom, but like I said, there are people better qualified to do that. I don't write where I am not qualified to except for obvious corrections to do with language, typos etc. DocJames wouold be able to confirm, I have twice before asked for his opinion on medical articles. Yes, I agree that the section title was a bit harsh and have now changed it. Best regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs attention 

message: This information seems fine but is irrelevant. It stood alone as an individual one-sentence paragraph before I removed it and placed it here. It doesn't imply anything about babies with colic as it stands. I'm placing it here instead of deleting it because it seems it's possibly well-cited and perhaps is relevant to the topics of babies with colic and if rephrased that relevance would become apparent. Perhaps some day someone will check the citation and see if it contains relevant info and include it in the article. I don't have the time to do so, so one step at a time for now.
Here's the removed sentence: 
Most babies have mild acid reflux, often referred to as "spitting up."
makeswell (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree off topic and removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence lacks relevance as currently phrased 

message: Yes, death has the potential to be rather serious...this needs to be re-phrased. 2.31.36.39 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "potentially serious side effects, including death"

message: User:Djkoutdoors Per this "Colic results from organic disease in less than 10% of babies"
Specifically diagnosis involves ruling out organic causes so it does not really make sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And it would be "fewer" in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why the ref says "The colicky crying pattern results from organic disease in <10%." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Text

message: Lead says "affects 10–40% of children", epidemiology section says "5–25% of children". Either a clarification or consistency needed. Brandmeistertalk   20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated. Ref in lead was newer than in body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affected percentage 

message: Is this a useful reliable source? https://cdn.journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2016/05000/Infant_Colic_What_works___A_Systematic_Review_of.3.aspx?exportImagesToPpt=true&fbclid=IwAR2gOWLCAW7ejKB7cVe4vB45H5yfQGafBe9HRvBtsjZs1ILo9LE_mAcbGTw It shows that probiotics and fennel are useful.
I assume that this article is not acceptable: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229918309452?fbclid=IwAR0Rmxgxvz4qLtABJ52Uf16oEuhK6qDHYbIKktggGfK6Pdsfv7H1LIHOUzQ KFvdL (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup first source is good. Second one is not sufficient for WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pity, as the last source is spectacular in its results.... KFvdL (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful reliable? source? 

message: When baby's get colic 2601:8C0:C81:E40F:B802:CEC:638E:81F4 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colic