Talk:Spike-and-wave

message: CorenSearchBot found some repeats of this text with the scholarpedia spike-and-wave oscillation, and the
text has been reworded to remove this resemblance.  Reference to this article has been given.
: Accepted tentatively as fixed.  Next time, please recreate the article in your own words with the information you gleaned from the reference, without any language from the original.  Minor rewording is generally not sufficient.  — madman bum and angel 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Good work so far! I have a few suggestions and some questions for revision. The “Pathophysiology” section seems somewhat contradictory to me. In particular, the sentence: “Although there is evidence for the generation of a large EPSP, many studies have shown that synaptic inhibition remains unhindered in these types of paroxysmal depolarizing shifts, and also that a decrease in the inhibitory activity does not affect the synaptic strength which can facilitate the recruitment of more neurons in the cortex” is contradictory – if synaptic inhibition is not affected in paroxysmal depolarizing shifts, why has it been noted that a decrease in the inhibitory activity does not affect synaptic strength? Also, what do you mean by “recruitment of more neurons in the cortex”? And later on in the paragraph it is mentioned: “Many studies have shown that the inhibitory postsynaptic signaling is actually increased during these epileptic attacks.” This seems contradictory to the first sentence of the paragraph. Don’t forget to cite these studies and to include references in this section! To make the “Pathophysiology” section flow more smoothly, I think you could remove some of the definitive articles. Finally, I think you should consider the pertinence of the “Clinical Relevance” section. Do these AEDs treat seizures characterized by spike-and-wave?  -Reedich (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: This is article is very well written and is structured properly.  All of the information is presented and explained in a clear and concise manner, and I found the topic to be very interesting. There were very few grammatical errors, but I would still recommend proofreading the entire article. The one major error that I found was in the last sentence of the absence epilepsy section. I think the sentence structure just needs to be adjusted to make sense.  Most of the key ideas about spike-and-wave and its occurrence in various epileptic conditions are presented in the article, but there is one content issue that I would like to address. 
One topic that I think could be expanded on is the mechanistic cause of the spike-and-wave.  Under the pathophysiology section, you discuss the role of EPSPs and IPSPs in the spike-and-wave pattern, and you go into some detail about the specific receptors (GABAa) that are involved with the IPSP. I think that you also need to go into a little more detail about the EPSP aspect of the spike-and-wave. I found an article, Ngomba et al (PMID: 21569017), which discusses the role of metabotropic glutamate receptors in the development of the spike-and-wave. I think this would help just to clarify a little further the underlying mechanism of this pattern. This paper also talks about these receptors as potential drug targets, which may be an interesting point to add to the clinical relevance section.
Mlodzins (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Overall, the article is well researched, and for the most part, grammar and sentence structure are good, but there are a few phrasing issues as well as inappropriate capitalization. I also noticed a couple inconsistencies in the use of “spike and wave” instead of “spike-and-wave” (in epilepsy section). In general, the order and manner in which the information is presented makes sense; sentences are concise and to the point and (with the exception of a few awkwardly worded sentences) easy to understand. 
In the overview, consider linking to the cerebral cortex page.  I would also suggest removing the following sentence: “One proposal suggests that a thalamocortical (TC) loop is involved in the initiation spike-and-wave oscillations.” Try to keep the overview as general as possible. Because of Wikipedia’s concerns in remaining free of bias, it would be best to not single out any one area of research, as this could be considered as favoring or biased. The overview gives a very good idea of what spike-and-wave is, and it is particularly effective because it is concise and direct.  
I found the history section to be interesting and am wondering if you have any information on who Gibbs, Davis, Lennox, and Pollen were. Since they don’t have their own Wikipedia pages it may be worth it to include a couple words about where they did their research or were affiliated, if you have that information. It would be interesting for the reader and also give the reader the necessary information to research the topic further. 
In the pathophysiology section, the word “viewpoint” stood out to me. Since Wikipedia strives to be unbiased, “viewpoint” may not be the best word choice; it could confuse the reader as to whether or not the described mechanism of the PDS was an opinion or a theory supported by evidence. Something to the effect of “The initial understanding of the PDS was…” would be more impartial. In that same sentence, PDS appears in parentheses. I think this was probably accidental; the parentheses should be removed. Also under pathophysiology, the subheadings “Research on Initiation Factors” and “Research on Environmental Factors” include unnecessary capitalization. “Research on initiation factors” and “Research on environmental factors” would better fit Wikipedia guidelines for a Good article. 
I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out if those two research subheadings make sense in the pathophysiology section, or if they would be better as a separate research section later in the article. According to Wikipedia, pathophysiology is “the study of the changes of normal mechanical, physiological, and biochemical functions, either caused by a disease, or resulting from an abnormal syndrome. More formally, it is the branch of medicine which deals with any disturbances of body functions, caused by disease or prodromal symptoms.” I think the information in these two subheadings is important to the pathophysiology section, so I would suggest emphasizing how this research has implications on the study of spike-and-wave specifically related to disease. This concluding sentence was effective: “This model concludes that low glucose levels could be a potential trigger for absences seizures, and could be an environmental risk factor for humans.” Something similar for the other two paragraphs, relating the research back to disease and spike-and-wave, would be beneficial and emphasize why this information belongs under pathophysiology. 
In the spike-and-wave in epilepsy section, I don’t think that “Onset” at the end of the first paragraph should be capitalized. Also, in regards to the section on OS, a Google search showed that “early infantile epileptic encephalopathy” and “suppression-burst” do not need to be capitalized. The list used in this section was effective and is organized and easy for the reader to understand. Additionally, the capitalization of the “Spike-and-Wave Pattern during Sleep” and “Clinical Relevance” subheadings should be changed such that only the first word is capitalized. 
In the spike-and-wave pattern during sleep section, there is also a fragmented sentence that needs to be addressed: “In a rare form of age-related epilepsy, where children between the ages of three and seven exhibit continuous spike-and-wave discharges during slow-sleep (CSWS).” An alternative may be: In a rare form of age-related epilepsy, children between the ages of three and seven exhibit continuous spike-and-wave discharges during slow-sleep. I am not sure what CSWS is referring to here; if this is the name of that type of epilepsy, a better sentence may be: In CSWS, a rare form of age-related epilepsy, children between the ages of three and seven exhibit continuous spike-and-wave discharges during slow-sleep. If you know what CSWS stands for, you should include that information as well. 
In the clinical relevance section, spike-and-wave is not mentioned once. Can you relate this information directly to spike-and-wave? Even just a couple sentences relating the information directly to spike-and-wave would make a big difference in the relevance of this section to the entire article. Based on the abstracts of the two sources cited in this section (Guerrini; Perucca), the sources appear to be focused on epilepsy and anti-epileptic drugs. You may need to find additional sources to relate anti-epileptic drugs directly to spike-and-wave. It would probably be sufficient to include just how the drugs cause the spike-and-wave to change. I would also propose a change to the following sentence to remove the personal pronoun: “Bromide was introduced as the first anti-epileptic drug 150 years ago. The adverse effects mentioned above are one of the reasons we don’t use bromide much today.” The new sentence could be something similar to the following: Bromide was introduced as the first anti-epileptic drug 150 years ago. Because of the adverse effects mentioned above, bromide is not currently in use as an anti-epileptic drug. 
Kmcglynn (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review