Talk:Sinusitis

message: My research of confirmed research articles confirms a connection between serious forms of deep sinusitis, ie sphenoid, and personality changes, neurological changes, etc...
Here are the links:
 Nasal, ...
PubMed Links
This material is not common knowledge although somewhat simple to understand.  An infection close to the brain, and toxins enter it.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He got banned indefinitely! Gccwang (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinusitis and Personality Disorders - Mental Illness. 

message: This text Natural Nasal Sprays such as Sinus Buster, SinuSoothe and Sinol are increasingly being recommended by Health physicians in the U.S. to relieve the symptoms of sinusitis. The manufacturers claim their nasal sprays are completely safe and can be used long term. They contain ingredients such as turmeric oilA.M.Siddiqui,X.Cui,R.Wu,W.Dong,M.Zhou.M.Hu,H.H.Suns,P.Wang. "The anti-inflammatory effect of curcumin in an experimental model of sepsis is mediated by up-regulation of perixosome,proliferator-activatedreceptor-gamma. Crit Care Med. 2006 Jul;34(7);1874-82.HIH-listed human clinical trials on turmeric and curcumin February 2010., tea tree oilJournal of Hospital Infections (2004;56:283-286), cited in Beauchamp,Kimberley.2004 "Tea Tree oil and Staph". BastyrCentre for Natural Health.A.Shemesh and W.L.Mayo.1991 "Australian tea tree oil;a natural antiseptic and fungicide agent". Aust J.Pharm.72:802-803C.D.Bishop (1995)."Anti-viral activity of the Essential Oil of Melalucia Alternifolia". Journal of Essential Oil Research:641-644K.J.Josh,A.L.Pearce,G.Marshman,J.J.June Finlay, P.H.Hart "Tea Tree Oil ReducesHistamine Induced Skin Inflammation". British Journal of Dermatology, 2002, vol.147,no6, pp.1212-1217. and capsaicinJ.B.Epstein et.al.Topical application of capsaicin for treatment of oral neuropathic pain and trigerminal neuralgia. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathos.1994 Feb;77(2):135-40W.R.Robbins et.al.."Treatment of intractable pain with topical large-dose capsaicin:Preliminary report". Anesthetic & Analgesia, 86:57983, march 1998.which have been clinically proven to have anti-allergenic,anti-bacterial,anti-fungal,anti-histamine,anti-inflammatory,analgesic,anti-septic,anti-viral,decongestant and expectorant properties. A double blind cross overy study that was carried out by the Institute for Asthma and Allergy showed some evidence of their effciacy although more trials would be helpful. was removed for a number of reasons.
First it is not based upon reviews as per WP:MEDRS but rather primary research.  Also many of the refs do not pertain to the topic at hand and are WP:SYNTH.  Please discuss before readding.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of text

message: The following comments from external reviewer BSW-JMH are in conjunction with the joint Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project.
Hello Sinusitis writers and editors.  The article has been give a Class B rating and high importance on the WikiProject Medicine quality scale.  The article is, for the most part, complete, provide a substantial amount of information on sinusitis, and has appropriate references.  As part of my review, I have revised the text to to enhance the clarity and flow of the article.  Further, I have detailed some suggestions below that I hope are helpful to further enhance the scope of the article.  I listed my comments by section to facilitate future revisions.
===Introductory section===
In general, this article references primary peer-review scientific literature.  I think this is appropriate for citing specific pieces of information but can be problematic for disseminating general information to Wikipedia users.  For example, the reference in the introductory section is an article in the American Journal of Medicine"", which may not be available to the general public.  There are several public websites on sinusitis that would be useful to cite here.  These include Google Health (https://health.google.com/health/ref/Sinusitis), Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/chronic-sinusitis/DS00232/DSECTION%3Dsymptoms), Medline Plus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000647.htm), and WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-infection).
::Non of these references of really ideal.  We should reference the peer reviewed literature as peer WP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the comments.  The images has a copyright of ADAMs on it.  Is it in the public domain?  I have seen lots of images like this and have always been unsure thus have not used them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course all those images are copyrighted and unusable here.  For images to be used they need to be in the creative commons.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External Review

message: In general, this article references primary peer-review scientific literature.  I think this is appropriate for citing specific pieces of information but can be problematic for disseminating general information to Wikipedia users.  For example, the reference in the introductory section is an article in the American Journal of Medicine"", which may not be available to the general public.  There are several public websites on sinusitis that would be useful to cite here.  These include Google Health (https://health.google.com/health/ref/Sinusitis), Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/chronic-sinusitis/DS00232/DSECTION%3Dsymptoms), Medline Plus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000647.htm), and WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-infection).
::Non of these references of really ideal.  We should reference the peer reviewed literature as peer WP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory section

message: In general this was well written, a few minor changes were made.  I revised the text to improve flow and clarity and rearranged the Chronic sinusitis section to make the sequence of information more logical.  Citation needed tags were added to sentences that require references.
Suggestions: The "By Location" subsection is very anatomical.  The technical terms should be replaced with common language.  Also a figure of the sinuses, such as this one (https://health.google.com/health/ref/graphic/19315) or found at this site (http://www.medicinenet.com/sinusitis/article.htm), would be a useful addition.BSW-JMH (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the comments.  The images has a copyright of ADAMs on it.  Is it in the public domain?  I have seen lots of images like this and have always been unsure thus have not used them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: Again, minor changes were made and citation need tags were added.  There is still a little technical language, such as ennervate, however I do not think it detracts from the article.  But more common language is better, even in these cases.
Suggestions: A reference or citation about the migrane drug would be helpful, including the manufacturer.BSW-JMH (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs and symptoms

message: Minor changes were made.  Much of this section is redundant.  The material should be expanded and possibly grouped with pathophysiology, as mentioned below.BSW-JMH (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes

message: I rearranged the sentences.  The lead sentence should refer to sinusitis and the supporting sentence further discuss biofilms.
Suggestions: This section is extremely limited in scope and should be expanded.
Key questions:
What causes the inflammation in non-biofilm sinusitis? Is it the immune system, a histamine response, other cytokines and chemokines?
Why does sinus inflammation often cause headaches and toothaches?BSW-JMH (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathophysiology

message: Minor changes were made.  The last sentence is a little out of place.  Addition of information about the other techniques used for diagnosis (CT scan, biopsy, cultures) would be a good addition to this section.  This website has a nice slideshow of pictures related to sinus infections, polyps, and a color MRI of inflammed sinuses (http://www.medicinenet.com/sinusitis_pictures_slideshow/article.htm#)BSW-JMH (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course all those images are copyrighted and unusable here.  For images to be used they need to be in the creative commons.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis

message: #6 needs to be updated (^ http://www.austinent.com/info/wiki/sinusitis.php)
#18 needs more details (^ Harrison's Manual of Medicine 16/e)
#30 needs more details (Bailey and Love)
#50 first link goes to an archaeology paper  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.3 (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: These are appropriate, though more should be added if possible.
I hope these suggestions are useful to the writers and editors of this article.BSW-JMH (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I think its very important to reinstate the mention and expansion of the treatment section. Most people will not know what nasal irrigation is, and if they are looking for a self-treatment, they might need a little more information before they search further for nasal irrigation methods. I mentioned once, and will enclose again, an example of nasal irrigation, called the Neti Pot, as well as brief description of what its purpose is, and how it can help treat sinusitis.  Alanna91 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it would be helpful to elaborate on how to actually use nasal irrigations. Prophylax (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes good ideas. Please use reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like the only mention of prevention is "Handwashing, avoiding smoking." Would consider creating a section on this to elaborate. Prophylax (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatments and Prevention 

message: I would like to have a discussion on why my edits made just a few weeks ago for honey were reverted. I had some private emails with James to which he gave brief one-sentence, inadequate, and disinterested response to my thoughtful writing (length). He's since locked the sinusitis article citing 'vandalism/spam' when there is hardly evidence to support as much, at least from the edits I was making or anyone else. Nothing warranted locking the article or ignoring genuine editors like myself as James did by saying 'obey the guide' but having no interest or meaning behind making that statement when I tried multiple times to interpret and follow the guide. 
I asked to open the edit again with a new source http://www.metroatlantaotolaryngology.org/journal/nov10/biofilms%20and%20honey.pdf
and he did not reply or unlock the article nor did he appear to consider modifying my original edit to make it follow the MEDRS guide.
He also said my original citation of 'webmd' is not acceptable when the guide he pointed me
to contradicts what he said and said WebMD is acceptable. 
I would like an WP admin or editor from the medical community, besides 'Doc' James, to intervene here and help decide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.156.55 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and thanks for your contributions so far. While I have no doubt that your edits were made in good faith, the content you added does appear to run afoul of WP:MEDRS, particularly this advice. Results from the in vitro study you cited, interesting as they are, are not yet significant enough to sway scientific consensus. The WEBMD article cites only the same study and therefore suffers a similar problem. For medical articles on Wikipedia, secondary sources are generally preferred. Wafflephile (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Regarding the reference "Effectiveness of honey on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms", it is a primary source, and only indirectly relevant to Wikipedia's article on "Sinusitis". I do not believe that it should be used here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  After a literature search, it appears that the use of honey is still at a relatively early stage of testing. Secondary sources do not support it. It does not have a place in Wikipedia's article (yet). Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a long history of inappropriate edits / vandalism to this article going back many month. I will give it another chance if we have more people watching it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: It's not my opinion. It is the opinion of secondary sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I do not appreciate your baseless aspersion regarding my motives. If you are interested in constructive discussion, please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if/when there are randomised controlled trials to support the use of honey in sinusitis this topic can be revisited. However, as it currently stands, there is absolutely no evidence that honey is useful in a clinical sense in sinusitis. Watermelon mang (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Hello Peter, the guideline at WP:MEDREV addresses this exact scenario. The WEBMD article is a simple news report and does not constitute a secondary source in the context of this discussion. I would love to engage on this topic again when more evidence and scientific analysis becomes available. Have a happy Pi Day! Wafflephile (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Related discussion at User_talk:76.175.156.55#Edits. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm certainly not being hostile. Just pointing out that the paper you cited is a primary study and is not a clinical trial directly looking at patients with sinusitis, rather it looks at bacterial biofilms in vitro and is therefore not directly relevant to an article discussing the treatment of sinusitis. Also you keep talking about "common sense" in safety of honey and anecdotal evidence. This is no longer acceptable in this era of evidence based medicine. After all, for centuries blood letting was used as a treatment for everything because it was "common sense" and there was plenty of anecdotal evidence, not that I'm suggesting honey is in the same category. For any treatment, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to prove efficacy. Watermelon mang (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey 

message: Summary of sinusitis treatments	Summary of sinusitis treatments                             	Summary of sinusitis treatments
Treatment                      	Indication                                                  	Rationale
Waiting for infection to pass  	Normal sinusitis                                            	Sinusitis is usually caused by a virus and the infection would not be affected by antibiotics or pharmaceutical treatment
Antibiotics                    	Abnormal sinusitis infection accompanied by other indicators	Sinusitis usually not caused by bacteria, but accompanied by fever, extreme pain, or a skin infection, it may be. Antibiotics only affect bacteria.
Nasal irrigation               	nasal congestion                                            	can provide relief by decongesting
drink liquids                  	thick phlegm                                                	remaining hydrated loosens mucus
antihistamines                 	concern with allergies                                      	antihistamines do not relieve typical sinusitis or cold symptoms much; this treatment is not preferable in most cases
Nasal spray                    	desire for temporary relief                                 	Relieves symptoms without treating cause; not recommended for more than three days' use
If we have the content in both a table and in prose it sort of results in duplication. While the table looks nice I think we need to simple work on one good prose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support use of both table and prose here. I see the table has already gone... I thought it looks nice. Lesion (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I really like this table, I will use it as a template for all tables I put in. Adds a bit of color, no? Lesion (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Table versus prose

message: As these disease are sufficient different they should probably be dealt with on separate pages. Similar to acute and chronic bronchitis.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think It would be reasonable to overview the basics of all the different types of sinusitis on this page and separately create pages for acute vs. chronic (which can dive into the different endotypes). Prophylax (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Acute versus chronic

message: This term should be explained somewhere. It's not defined anywhere, not introduced in classification, but used later in the body. This is confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Chronic rhinosinusitis — when the signs and symptoms last for more than 12 weeks" is there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion topic "Diagnostic criteria" below. The definition of chronic rhinosinusitis would benefit from a more nuanced discussion that includes cardinal symptoms and signs (please see https://www.entnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/adult-sinusitis-physicianresource-diagnostic-criteria-rhinosinusitis.pdf). Prophylax (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronic sinusitis 

message: Oppose merge. There is a proposal for merging fungal sinusitis into this page. While the fungal sinusitis article is practically incomprehensible at the moment, the topic deserves fuller coverage. I would like to see it remain a separate article because fungal sinusitis is generally much more serious, affects a different population (immunocompromised patients), and has different treatments, compared to bacterial and viral sinusitides.
I will work on the fungal sinusitis article at least to make it look a bit better.  Gccwang (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a copy and paste thus I deleted it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fungal rhinosinusitis should be discussed in the context of chronic rhinosinusitis, along with the other etiologic factors which are thought to be involved. 188.30.205.97 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with Fungal sinusitis 

message: Why does the first sentence state that sinusitis is inflammation of the sinuses that results in symptoms?  How and why would sinusitis be diagnosed without symptoms? --Iztwoz (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: People get CTs of their head all the time. We see inflammation on CT. If the person does not have symptoms this disease does not exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of not 'muddying the waters' since every single website definition states very simply and clearly that sinusitis is inflammation of the sinuses why does Wikipedia need to stand alone on this.? As it stands it calls for an explanation that sometimes they can show as being inflamed on CT scasn without presenting symptoms. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Went ahead and removed what appears to be semi-vandalism to the introduction by TooManyFingers who added quite a bit of content (to the article as a whole) citing 'MedyBlog' - which does not meet WP:MEDRS. The section about sinusitis staging (now removed) is not well-supported (or just...supported) in the literature.131.93.111.157 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed citations to this blog some time ago or marked them as unreliable medical sources. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive-By Editing and Citing of Medyblog 

message: Currently the diagnostic criteria / classification only mentions duration of symptoms. The symptoms are also generalized among the different types of sinusitis (under signs and symptoms).
In reality, the diagnostic criteria for the different types of classifications of sinusitis is more nuanced and also based on type of symptoms present. This nuanced information should be added to the article (see https://www.entnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/adult-sinusitis-physicianresource-diagnostic-criteria-rhinosinusitis.pdf). Prophylax (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnostic criteria 

message: The table currently titled "Stages of sinusitis" should probably be renamed to "Chandler Classification." As it stands, "stages of sinusitis" is rather confusing terminology to be referring to complications. Prophylax (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complications 

message: Should there be a section on alternative treatment modalities for sinusitis (eg, herbal remedies, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine)? Prophylax (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Medicine 

message: The current section on pathophysiology is quite weak as it only describes infectious etiologies. This section could be significantly expanded upon, for example to discuss the different types of inflammation (eg, endotypes 1, 2, 3) involved in chronic sinusitis. Prophylax (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathophysiology 

message: The current prognosis section is quite lacking in detail. It does not specify the type of sinusitis in the cited review from 2018. Furthermore, this section could benefit from discussion of prognosis based on the type of sinusitis. Prophylax (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prognosis 

message: This section currently could benefit significantly from a discussion of various types of research regarding sinusitis (acute, chronic, treatment, etc.). To make this section robust, there should likely be multiple subsections for each topic within sinusitis. Prophylax (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research