Talk:Cataract surgery

message: This page distinguishes polymethyl methacrylate lenses and sodium acrylate lenses from acrylic lenses.  However, "acrylic" is a term that is commonly used as a synonym for polymethyl methacrylate (tradenames Plexiglas and Lucite).  If it is not being used as a synonym, it means a more general concept which would include both polymethyl methacrylate and sodium acrylate (with which it is also being distinguished).
An edit is reccommended.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.154.12 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: We need something on the history of this procedure. When did man first try to remove cataracts? How did the procedure evolve into one of the safest? Lou Sander 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a start with it. --WS 11:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've been wondering what they did about anesthesia in the early days of modern cataract surgery. Also, family members recall from the 1940s and 1950s that patients' heads were immobilized for quite a while after the procedure. This might be a good addition to the history. Lou Sander 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: The opening paragraph includes the statement "It is one of the safest and most successful procedures in all of medicine".
This seems to be a rather bold statement to make without any data referenced to back it up.
--151.190.254.108 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although what constitutes "safe" and what constitutes "effective" is certainly open to a bit of interpretation, I have added a citation that backs up the statement. -AED 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a lot of literature and statistics to back this up. It is not only one of the safest and most successful, but also one of the quickest and most common non-trivial procedures, but it is necessary to support it with references, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety and efficacy

message: Mention if two eyes are ever operated on on the same day.
*Then how will you get home?
*But at a remote rural once a year clinic (if there is such) in a impoverished country, maybe it would make sense.
Jidanni 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Two eyes in the same day

message: ambulatory (rather than inpatient) setting
whereupon you commence to lose the reader in a forest of fancy unlinked words throughout the remainder of the article.
Ambulatory must mean in an ambulance, he thinks. Great :-( Jidanni 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambulatory means walking. It is not a particularly obscure word. In this context it refers to out-patient setting where the person goes home shortly after the operation.  · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "ambulatory"

message: Can I play golf?
Can I take the long trip airplane such as international fly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.115.80 (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What canI do after surgery? 

message: I recently had cataract surgery on my right eye.  I experienced a complication that I do not see listed in the article.  As my doctor explained to me, the crystalline lens (old lens) is fragmented during surgery, and then the fragments are removed.  One or more significant fragments of my old lens were missed, requiring a second surgery two days later.  I have seen this particular complication referenced at places other than Wikipedia, which in my experience is unusual: that is, usually Wikipedia articles are quite thorough.  I would really appreciate some feedback on this.  66.26.236.105 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  one other complication 

message: Followed by three bullet points??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.178.19 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition;-) (don't worry if you dont get the reference) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There are two main types of cataract surgery"... 

message: This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. 
I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see thisedits). Tobby72 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the claims have been checked and the refs found relevant and valid, or the text changed, though it is always possible that something has been missed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of sources

message: Quoting the article:
:There are three main types of cataract surgery:
:Phacoemulsification (Phaco) .................
:Conventional extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE):...............
:Intracapsular cataract extraction (ICCE) ................ After lens removal, an artificial plastic lens (an intraocular lens implant) can be placed in either the anterior chamber or sutured into the sulcus. (end quote)
The way this is set up, it appears that ONLY IN THE THIRD TYPE is an artificial lens implanted.  I'm sure this is not the case but I don't know enough to change this.  Please will someone take a look at this? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cataract surgery. 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/20080826095607/http://www.medrounds.org/bookstore/ProductDetail.php?product_id=79 to http://www.medrounds.org/bookstore/ProductDetail.php?product_id=79
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017055832/http://www.pcli.com/cataract/history.html to http://www.pcli.com/cataract/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726035011/http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/couching.pdf to http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/couching.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.aao.org/news/academy_express/20060405.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Update the descriptions in complications sections for retinal detachment and toxic anterior segment syndrome to describe what happens and what patients might experience. 
* Will also add prevalence of each complication in the section. Neilshieh (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This group substantially improved the Wikipedia page by adding prevalence and incidence with risk according to up to date guidelines Niamh.ogrady (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations 2 Group 4c 

message: Is anyone who has previously substantively edited this article, including adding references, going to object if the references are reformatted consistently using list based CS1 formatting? If so, please explain your reasons and describe a preferred consistent alternative. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as  is optional. still a few obscure  but uncontroversial items, but better than most, formatting fairly consistent.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. probably something I have overlooked, let me know when you find it.
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.follows MEDMOS fairly well, let me know if there are any problems.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. I think so, YMMD.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.has infobox, navbox and some photos. More photos would be nice.
 I think so, though it is by nature sowemwhat technical. Let me know if you find any specific problems and I will try to elucidate. I researched and explained a lot of stuff, but probably missed something.
Looks OK, Promoting to B.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review 

message: There are probably enough good quality sources available to create a substantial article on cataract surgery in India if anyone has the inclination. It is the world leader in quantity, and has a long history as well. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cataract surgery in India 

message: I made some copyvio checks using Earwig's tool, and it gave a warning for the Wikidoc article. I checked various old versions on both sites and the first version of the page on Wikidoc has a later date than than similar versions on Wikipedia, therefore the Wikipedia version is the original. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that with Centipede. STEMinfo (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidoc copied from us. 

message: , you deleted a reference with the edit summary . What is your evidence? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: is published by Sciencedomain International, a well-known predatory publisher.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , It does seem to be somewhat shaky, though the information it was used to support is the sort of thing one would not question if published in a newspaper, and is probably true, certainly plausible. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nonetheless a clear fail of WP:MEDRS.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not referencing biomedical information therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply, so it could not fail WP:MEDRS. Nevertheless it has been replaced. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predatory publisher? 

message: What kind of new advanced lens offered and how much additional if on Medicare 2600:1010:B178:E983:E02A:5CBC:EDEC:665 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different lens  

message: "Early symptoms of cataract may be improved by wearing specific types of glasses":  What are the types? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . As far as I can make out, sunglasses for excessive glare, and updated regular prescription glasses, as a general refractive change seems to be fairly common when cataracts are developing, so not so much "specific" as "ordinary but optimised". The source claimed specific, and the editor who added the statement presumably just followed the source. I have not found a better source. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'm going to change that to "appropriate", in the hope that it will not send people on a wild goose chase after cataract-specific glasses.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable thing to do. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special type of glasses 

message: , who did GA review, , who did peer review, , who did significant copy editing, and  who seemed to take an interest. Just letting you all know that the article has been nominated for FA, thanks in part to your efforts so far. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtesy notification of FAC