Talk:Diabetic retinopathy

message: The phrase
...90% of these new cases could be reduced if there was...
should be
...90% of these new cases could be reduced if there were..TakenEd (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditional Tense 

message: This is a new form of treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy that is making a big difference in the management of Diabetic Retinopathy. Why can this not be covered? There is only one product out there that provides this right now and it is the Noctura 400 which has passed all of the medial trials and regulations needed. If the product name cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia then ok, however people should be allowed information about the therapy that is provided. As an online Encyclopedia you should support medical innovation that is helping to change the way such diseases can be treated in a nonintrusive way. 
Please can you advise on this matter and how to allow people to find out about this though Wikipedia. Many thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctura400 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There will have to be multiple independent references to show it is notable. And then someone without a conflict of interest will have to update the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Therapy (Noctura 400) 

message: Although some areas (e.g. the section on Research) of the article lack content, the article, as a whole, belongs to the category of good-quality articles. The lead section is brief and straightforward. I don’t think there is any problem with the statistics presented in the lead section. The coverage is neutral. The article did not go into details of each diagnostic techniques. However, it did not explain any technique in much detail either. Therefore, there is a well balance in that section, in particular. Subheadings and headings are used to divide the article into sections that one usually see in a medical reference book on a particular disease. This organization makes the article easy to read and search for information. All other sections besides Research have adequate amount of information and are mostly cited with reliable sources. All cited sources came from known journals, and some were from specific organizations for diabetic retinopathy. The latter sources should be critical evaluated and further supported by articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Qluong2016 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  My review of the current article 

message: User:Qluong2016 - about this diff - we base WP content on secondary sources.  See WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content added was on research of the field. I would think the providing the primary sources would be more better and would allow users to know more of the ongoing research. I don't think research can be based on secondary like other sections of the article. Qluong2016 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You might think that.  You picked some recent research papers to highlight here, based on your own judgement of what is important.  However, Wikipedia articles are generally based on secondary sources, like literature reviews. We do that because we rely on experts in the field to tell us what research is important - we don't make that judgement ourselves as editors nor do we argue about which editor's judgement is better for picking which research to highlight - there is no end to such a disagreement here.  We rely on the published experts. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content 

message: I should raise potential conflict of interest immediately.  I work for the company that produces a light mask to treat diabetic retinopathy but as a long term user of Wikipedia (mainly reading rather than editing) I know that its not for advertising and I of course fully agree with that. My previous edits that cite Noctura 400 were not meant to be advertising but I can see how it may be viewed as such and I thank the editor for removing these links that could go against the WP:SPAM policy. 
However as there is now one light therapy treatment available through either health services or through private purchase.  Research and user data (privileged and not on the internet) is showing very positive results.  There are still some elements in research to assist in further proving clinical efficacy but the treatment is on sale and available to anyone in the world.  Due to the COI maybe the edits shouldn't come from me but I'm keen to have the treatment in the correct area of this page i.e. as a treatment rather than research.  Keen to read others views
Best
Alex  Northernalex (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note!   When I removed those links I carefully read the sources that were already used in the article; I also searched pubmed and also looked at NICE, NHS Choices, the EMA, and the FDA websites to try to find other MEDRS sources.  I didn't find any more.  So we can't say any more than we do now about whether this is safe and effective nor it being available for sale.  Unless I missed something...  Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your reply. Also thanks for searching. Must have taken a while so thank you for your dedication! :)
There's a fair bit of information on the web about it and safety/efficacy has been proven (mask has CE and there has been some clinical trials) Light therapy has been used since around 2010 in research and the current review articles that discuss light therapy do mention light as a treatment 
http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015254a.html
"Recently, a few clinical studies have also shown that preventing dark adaptation by suppressing rods with 500-nm light source at night decreases the rate of progression of early diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy in the short-term. We await the results of a large two-year multi-centre trial (CLEOPATRA trial) to evaluate the long-term effects of decreasing dark adaptation by applying a 500nm light source"
This review discusses efficacy and safety for short term treatment but notes that the authors are waiting for results of a much larger multi-centre trial. It also mentions its a treatment for early DR and also maculopathy. We are involved in CELOPATRA but were not involved in any way in the writing of this article so its secondary?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11892-015-0686-2
http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/68/3/872
Also discuss light therapy as a treatment.
Regarding the specific mask/treatment we've developed, you can purchase it from the outside clinic
http://outsideclinic.co.uk/sight-test/our-products/diabetic-retinopathy/
or a number of Boots stores (pilot sales scheme at the moment so not on the web).  Its listed as a treatment on the Fight for Sight A-Z of eye conditions page (in the treatments section)
http://www.fightforsight.org.uk/about-the-eye/a-z-eye-conditions/diabetic-retinopathy/
Kind Regards
Alex Northernalex (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The content you are proposing is not supported by that source; everything in WP needs to be supported by reliable sources.  Again please do read WP:PROMO.  Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understand. However light therapy is not only being researched, it is available as a treatment and there are patients using it as a treatment every day. To have it only in research is incorrect.  Understand WP:PROMO which is why I'm not making the change myself. Northernalex (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: you have proposed content that is not supported by sources; please don't do that. The way things work here, is that content must be supported by reliable sources.  From the perspective of Wikipedia, we have no deadline here in WP and we can wait for good sources to add content. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood. I did propose a source, an NHS Trust website (that shows that the treatment is not only in research) but understand that may not meet the WP requirements for a 'good source'.  As you say, we have to wait until publications appear that fit the requirements. Thank you again for your help Northernalex (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light therapy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diabetic retinopathy. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512194443/http://www.nei.nih.gov:80/health/diabetic/retinopathy.asp to http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/diabetic/retinopathy.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512194443/http://www.nei.nih.gov:80/health/diabetic/retinopathy.asp to http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/diabetic/retinopathy.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This statistic has been parroted all over the internet, but in the linked source I cannot see any mention of this number. I would be glad to be proven wrong if anyone can actually point to where it is presented.
Joon-Ho Son (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "At least 90% of new cases could be reduced with proper treatment and monitoring of the eyes" 

message: Vujosevic, et al. 2020 Lancet Diabetes Endocrin. has quite a bit on research into screening programs and future screening modalities. Could be used for the Research section. Ajpolino (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources