Talk:Klazomania

message: This article could be improved if it included what effects Klazomania can have on you life, pictures, or explained exactly what, if any, limitations there may be to the compulsive shouting. Dingmana (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room For Improvement 

message: We see an abrupt jump in the text here: does the second paragraph refer to the same K.R. as above?
---
He subsequently served as a model to describe klazomania from beginning to end. 
As seen in K.R., the onset was characterized by absentmindedness:  the patient stared straight ahead and only responded in monosyllables in the minutes leading up to the incident. 
---
Also, I'm finding a lot of text that needs to be removed because the sources don't deal with klazomania at all and the text applies to TS and tics in general.  I'm finding it hard to sort this without access to the Wohlfart and Bates articles, though.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing 

message: Click here to see how I fixed a response above to preserve the bullet formatting (you increase the indents by adding one more period after the pound sign than in the previous line-- that preserves the numbers).  G'night!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As the repair linked to shows, the character to be added is a colon (:), not a period (. = "full stop"). --Thnidu (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page formatting 

message: I now have both Bates and Wohlfart, and there are some problems here.  Neither Bates nor Wohlfart are recent reviews; in fact, Wohlfart is quite old, so its usefulness here is limited, and good deal of the text associated with these authors might need to be deleted if current secondary reviews contradict them.  Tough call, because so little is written, but a recent (2006) review by Jankovic (which I have, and is cited in the article) lists klazomania as associated with other disorders (that is, infectious processes, not with Tourette's).  I feel that a good bit of this article needs to be deleted, as it seems to assume that klazomania is associated with TS, while Jankovic (our only recent review) does not.  Jankovic is a widely known TS researcher, and the 2006 Volume 99 Advances in Neurology was dedicated to a review of TS, and included all of the best known researchers.  Also, a lot of the text here refers generally to TS, not specifically to klazomania, and in fact, cited some articles that didn't even mention klazomania. Also, while the Jankovic article meets WP:MEDRS, Bates and Wohlfart do not.  Further, the Wohlfart article does not even mention TS, so it appears that we are verging into original research by using some of the TS literature.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: is only a case report, but if anyone can access it, it seems to provide more confirmation that klazomania is not currently viewed as part of the spectrum of tic disorders, rather is thought to be related to an infectious process, specifically, encephalitis lethargica and parkinsonism.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: You guys did a nice job with the article providing both a description of the disease and the scientific background. I have a couple of suggestions though. First, I think the first paragraph that's before all other headings should include a very brief hypothesis of the cause of the disease. Also, this should be a single paragraph. That way it forces you to be concise and create a nice sounding paragraph. My next suggestion would be to avoid being repetitive. You use the term "tic disorders" very often. Perhaps reword it. Also, you don't need to "hyperlink" the word every time you use it. Next, in the classifications section, only focus on klazomania. I know it's necessary to discuss its difficulty in being classified but make sure every sentence focuses on the disease itself and doesn't deviate from he article when you can just use hyperlinks for that. Next, I think the report about the postman K.R. should be in a different section other than Signs and Symptoms - maybe History or create a different "Cases" section. Next, I would advise to elaborate on the diagnosis section. If this is not possible, maybe you should find a section that it would fit in to and put it there instead. Also, I was very confused when I read the diagnosis section after reading the Pathophysiology section. The first sentences in each completely contradict each other. And if you guys can think of a relevant picture, I think that would make the article more attractive. Overall, the article was nicely written and very informative. Good job with this. Grant.vandervoort (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 3

message: You are off to a great start!  I have just a few suggestions.  The first sentence confused me in that you say “this classification is difficult” but there is no reference to what the classification is.  You mention features, but not a classification.  A more specific adjective than “difficult” may be better to use, such as “problematic”.
Since the case study of K.R. is in individual case and is often used as a model for the disease, it may be more effective to include this information in the “History” section rather than with the description of the general signs and symptoms .
One sentence is very short for a section, so the “Daignosis” section should probably be expanded.  Rather than just saying what does not work as a form of diagnosis, it may help to include what tests are performed that lead to an actual positive diagnosis of Klazomania.  There also seems to be inconsistancey when you say that “Changes are observed on EEG in the substantia nigra and the globus pallidus with klazomania” in regards to pathophysiology but then later say that “EEG abnormalities are not observed during klazomania” when speaking about diagnosis.
I would also recommend citing more sources.  Good luck as you continue editing! Coopersk (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 4

message: I think your article is off to a great start and it is a very interesting topic.  I actually had this article on my list of topics I wanted to do.  Anyway, I just had a couple suggestions .  
In the causes section you explained that the motor circuit between the substantia nigra to the globus pallidus becomes overstimulated during the mesencephalic fit and later mention in the pathophysiology section that the "mesostriatal pathway involving the substantia nigra and the globus pallidus are both dopaminergic pathways."  I think it would be beneficial to explain how this dopaminergic pathway works and how alterations to the normal pathway can cause symptoms seen in Klazomania and other related disorders.   If research specifically to Klazomania doesn't exist, is there a similar pathway seen in other disorders that Klazomania is related to?
Also, in the current research section are there any other research initiatives in any disorder related to Klazomania that may further the understanding of Klazomania itself?
Kierak33 (talk) 20:06 PM, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. The original creator of this page made a lot of changes to it and took out the part about the mesostriatal pathway involving the substantia nigra and dopaminergic pathways in the pathophysiology section. Also, the pathway from the substantia nigra to the globus pallidus and what symptoms it causes are explained in great detail in other articles about tics and tourrettes. The original creator of this page, User:SandyGeorgia, suggested we leave those details in the articles about tics and tourrettes and put a link to those pages, which we did. She suggested this because the connection between tics and tourrettes and klazomania is not proven and the general cause for klazomania is still unknown at this time. Professor Burdo and User:SandyGeorgia both suggested we do not put anything in our article that is not proven by outside sources. There is very little on current research in Klazomania that we could find. Thanks again. Goverman (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 5

message: In the introduction, maybe you can explain what tic orders are and how they differ from compulsions. Are all compulsions tic orders? I think the paragraph from 'Classification' is a good start and actually the 'Classification' paragraph can go more in depth about the topic. Also, under 'Classifications' does TS refer to Tourette Syndrome? If it does, (TS) should be included after Tourette Syndrome to minimize confusion. Then you list several tic orders, but specifically how are they similar to Klazomania? Under 'Signs and Symptoms', I understood the relevance of K.R.'s story in portraying the symptoms involved, but I am not sure if it is appropriate in this section. Maybe you can have another section that talks about people's experiences. The story might fit under that category better. In addition, under 'Causes' elaborate on the statement that talks about how Klazomania is linked to brain damage from alcoholism and encephalitis. Again, specifically how does Klazomania link in with brain damage from alcoholism and encephalitis? Does brain damage from other sources also contribute to Klazomania? Finally, please elaborate on how klazomania is diagnosed. You explain how klazomania is not associated with seizures, but how is it diagnosed? Overall, every interesting article. I didn't know what Klazomania was, but gained useful information. Stephanie Lee (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The clarification regarding (TS) is present at the time of my viewing. The article no longer includes a reference to compulsions. Viewing the articles themselves, which are wiki-linked is probably a better way to understand the related tics. The case report of patient K.R provides a rare description of what occurs before, during, and after a Klazomaniac attack so we thought it useful to include a much information about the circumstances. There is no information to my knowledge in literature we have about how alcoholism and encephalitis related brain damage specifically or directly leads to the condition. We'd love to know just as much as you. There is no further diagnostic criteria for Klazomania specifically than what is present. Baumannd (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 6

message: Hey guys interesting stuff. I just noticed a couple things when reading that you may want to look at. In the first section you say it is hard to classify and resembles tics a bunch of times. You can probably condense that down, it seems a little repetitive. 
The signs and symptoms section was informative and interesting. I just was wondering, you used the one case example to describe the disease: is it just that uncommon of a disease that there are few cases to report or did you just choose to look closely into one? It would be interesting to note the rate of occurrence of the disorder somewhere. 
Finally, to echo Coopersk, I was confused when you go into detail about EEG abnormalities in the pathophysiology section and then right after say it isn't related to epilepsy because there are no EEG abnormalities. Did you just mean the same abnormalities are not seen? I would just reword that and either eliminate or expand that section.
Anyway, it was interesting and informative.
Tyler8014 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 6

message: Good start on the article- I felt that it was very informative.  I had never heard of Klazomania before, I now have a good background of it.  However, a few suggestions:
In the intro section and then first section you do mention tics a lot (as the peer review above me says), but I think that it would be helpful to give a short definition of what tics are in the first place.  Obviously people can click on the tics link, but in order to keep them reading your article, I feel that a short definition or explanation would be helpful.  
Also, there seems to be some contradiction as to EEG abnormalities presented with klazomania.  In the Pathophysiology section, you state that changes on the EEG are observed, and then in the Diagnosis section, you state that they are not observed.  Furthermore, I think that the Diagnosis section could be expanded in general.  Maybe you could state some of the obvious signs of Klazomania, and then relate them to concrete medical diagnoses (such as the EEG, when that is straightened out).  
Lastly, perhaps the Management section (which could be renamed Treatment?) could be expanded.  Although you cite some of the sources you got your information from, some background and explanation of the effects of such treatment would benefit the article (especially in relation to future research).  Maybe explain how and when these treatments were tested and had their effects (or didn't have any effects).  You reference specific examples in the rest of the article, so I feel like this section would benefit from the citing of concrete evidence as well.  
martaak  (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 7

message: Awesome job on the article! I just have a few suggestions for you. I would try to expand on the diagnosis section if possible, having a section with only one line doesn't seem useful, however I know it is tough to find information on the subject. Also, there seems to be some confusion with whether or not EEG abnormalities are seen in patients with klazomania. In the Diagnosis section it is stated that there are no abnormalities seen, while in the Pathophysiology section it is stated that there are changes seen. I would just try to clear this up. Also, I think having a few more references might be helpful in expanding your article. Another thing I would suggest is adding an image if you can find one related to the subject. But overall this is a great article!
Ivesm (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 8

message: There are just a few mistakes that I found inside the classification section of the article. The last two sentences of the paragraph should be reworded just a bit, so that the sentences could flow better. Are there any articles that you have found that talk about how the lesions are created in the mesencephalon. If so, I suggest you add details on how such lesions are formed within the brain.
In the Pathophysiology section you talk about an EEG. You should explain what this and also hyperlink it to its wikipedia article. In the same section, the second sentence of the second paragraph should be corrected to read, “The vocalizing center in animals are…” The diagnosis section of the article should really be expanded because it doesn’t really state how someone is diagnosed with klazomania. Kiki522 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 9

message: The page has started out on the right track. It is easy to read and very informative.  However there are some suggestions I would make to make the page better.  To start with, Diagnosis seems unneccesary. I think it would be better suited to include a small augmented section into the Causes section.  Also, I would suggest rearranging the sections to be; History, Classification, Pathophysiology, Signs and symptoms (with Diagnosis augmented in), Causes, Managements, and finally Research directions. This order gives the reader a somewhat more direction idea of what to expect. As it stands now, the sections seems to be somewhat random. Though this is just a suggestion, so you are free to leave it as is. Also, after reading your page, I was confused as to how frequent this condition is. Your page makes specific references, making it seem as though the condition is very sparse. If there was a statistic about how frequent this condition occurs, that would help to clarify how often people contract this condition.  Additionally, the Classifications section could use a little more direction. After reading it, I don’t feel as though I know what the actual classifications of the condition are.  In the classification, it seems to be more an argument as to what type of condition klazomania is considered. A summarizing introductory sentence stating that klazomania’s classification in terms of other diseases and conditions is under scrutiny, and you will be discussing those different classifications and the justifications behind each; would make the classification section more unified and comprehensible. Finally, an easy way to make the page more interactive would be to add some pictures.  The page is definitely a good start, and looks good so far! Keep up the good work!
LukestarrrR (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please se WP:MEDMOS on sections in medical articles on Wikipedia.  Pictures that don't exist can't be added.  And the sum total of what is written in sources that comply with Wikipedia's medical sourcing policies is at Talk:Klazomania#Jankovic; Wikipedia can't report information that doesn't exist, although this article is using primary studies (Wohlfart and Bates) to describe the few cases that are documented.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The important aspect of the Diagnosis section is in Klazomania as a tourettism and its difference from Tourette's syndrome itself. Also as said elsewhere on the page we are following WP:MEDMOS for arranging the sections. The lead specifically mentions the rarity of the disorder, but no statistics about it exist to my knowledge. No pictures for describing the condition exist to my knowledge. The classification section gives different ways the disorder has been described in literature. The article states it is described as a vocal tic and a tourrettism. I'm not sure how else we could clarify that. Baumannd (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 11

message: Well done, guys, I think you have made a lot of important revisions since the first time I looked over the article. In addition, I think you have made great use of the Wikipedia community, and have engaged in the spirit of collaboration. Many of the suggestions I would have made have already been addressed here--my only concern is that you sit down with the suggestions and take the time to hash them out one by one. Also, you have only cited 6 sources; if you are having trouble with the edits, perhaps an additional source would help to fill in some of the gaps. Otherwise, I think that you are on the right track.
Good luck, and great job so far! Stempera (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this group of students has done a commendable job of engaging on talk, working with "the community", and understanding Wikipedia policies-- even more so when considering they had to expand  stub about which almost nothing is written.  The six sources used are a stretch, as they had to employ primary sources for some parts of the article-- sources that don't meet WP:MEDRS.  If you are aware of any additional untapped sources, please bring them forward-- I haven't found anything else written on this symptom.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-peer review

message: If the students working on this article can gain access to the full text of any of these sources, they mention (briefly, in passing) klazomania.  Some of them are old, none are secondary reviews, I doubt that any of them contain anything useful, they are only case reports (which we shouldn't be using anyway, but we already are), but for what it's worth, in case you can access them via your university library, you may glean one or two new sentences.  Caution, though, that we shouldn't use old sources, or case reports, to contradict what is in the only secondary recent review we have (Jankovic), so if you find anything useful, you might run it be the talk page where I can help with it.  (By the way, I removed a See also section.  See WP:LAYOUT-- when other articles are already linked in the text, we don't also list them in See also, which is better used for articles being expanded that haven't yet had all terms included and linked.)
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Here is one review (almost 20 years old) that mentions klazomania in passing, in case you can access it-- again, because it's old, it shouldn't be used to contradict Jankovic, but may have a bit of info that can be added:
* 
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for finding these. Of the few I was able to access the only part that seemed like it could possibly be useful is from the Kumar article. The important bit was, "Small open-label trials of L-dopa in TS have produced variable results an increase in movements different from the patient's pretreatment tics occurred in one of three patients treated with 1,000 to 3,000 mg/d of plain L-dopa; simultaneous treatment with 6 g/d of plain L-dopa and 900 mg/d of chlorpromazine had no effect in a single patient; and a unique patient recovering from a severe head injury demonstrated symptoms similar to klazomania (compulsive shouting) and TS reproducibly elicited by L-dopa". I can't find the article that is cited as the source. I'm also not sure how relevant it is that Klazomaniac attacks can be produced using L-Dopa. Baumannd (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure how to work that in either; I'll ping WT:MED to see if one of our resident docs will come over and have a look.  Nice work so far!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: One case report? Does not really seem significant here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Klazomania. 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/20090413173204/http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/touretteTR.htm to http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/touretteTR.htm
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) 13:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified