Talk:Cataract/Archive 2

Classification Section

Where do polychromatic (Christmas Tree) cataracts come in these forms (or is there some other form?) of classification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally diabetes, myotonic dystrophy, some drugs and occasionally Santa Aspheric (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not all eye specialists

This page probably makes complete sense to eye specialists. It is just confusing to the layman. That there are so many links to medical terms, I think, proves my point. A complete rewrite, remembering we are not all experts, would be great - I doubt it will happen. cf any Wikipedia page dealing with money, economics or science. Nobody seems to understand the two words 'plain English' Cannonmc (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of medical websites on cataracts elsewhere online written in plain language. Wikipedia strives to stay on top; otherwise, the medical experts won't contribute as much. 5Q5 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do better on this page. Including cutting edge information is important, but there is a limit. Accessibility is important, too; it's an encyclopedia, not a medical journal for physicians. It's a balance. Rytyho usa (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all agreed that the article is a mess from any point of view (including scientific). I would suggest starting by tidying the lead and improving the structureNernst (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to improve readability of types of cataracts in 'signs and symptoms'. I don't know if it is plain English but hopefully a little better. --Mdscottis (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdscottis, I noticed that the section classifcation was excessive, cataract doesn't have such a complicated classifcation. The terms cataract rubra, nigra, amber,etc and abreviations IMSC,MSC,HMSC,etc aren't used anymore. I made some changes to the section surgery, and added a post-op care section. Kiatdd (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally the article should have something for everyone, from patient to PhD. I agree it shouldn't be prominant but it seems a shame to lose it completely. Though i'm not sure where you'd put itAspheric (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks aspheric, regarding multifocal iols yanoff says: "unwanted optical images can be seen at night, such as halos around headlights...a patient who is dissatisfied with mfiol is more difficult to deal with and lens exchange occasionally is required". Kiatdd (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for taking the time to retrieve the quote. Article seems to be shaping up nicelyAspheric (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to add a line about suturing and their removal in the steps of surgery, are they sometimes necessary? Kiatdd (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable suggestion but will probably only cause confusion if we try to explain sutured vs sutureless, timing of removal and/or refractive implications from induced astigmatism Aspheric (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research section

The Research section needs to be deleted and its contents combined in my opinion with the Prevention and Treatment sections as appropriate. There are more recent studies on PubMed, too. A job for a medical editor out there. You? 5Q5 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we ought to get rid of the research section? Research sections are helpful, because they serve to differentiate standard-of-care treatments from those under investigation, even those treatments that show signs of promise. In my opinion, the relevant and notable research being currently conducted should be added to the research section, rather than deleting it altogether. Rytyho usa (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The research section contains the following:
"In the early 2000s eye drops containing N-acetylcarnosine have been used by several thousands of cataract patients across the world. The drops are believed to work by reducing oxidation and glycation damage in the lens, particularly reducing crystallin crosslinking.[42][43] Randomized controlled trials indicate the drops may be especially appropriate for seniors, or others where surgery is not advised.[44]"
There are over 40 citations concerning this in PubMed, all by the same author.
There are 5 citations in the Cochrane database. Again, all are by that same author.
Further, neither PubMed nor Cochrane contain any systematic reviews, actually reviews of any sort, relating to this.
Finally, the author's institution seems to be a commercial enterprise.
I am uneasy about this and how it is likely to be interpreted by readers. I think it should be removed as 'primary research'. --Mdscottis (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is snake oil but it is cited in a decent systematic review (secondary source) Toh T, Morton J, Coxon J, Elder MJ (2007). "Medical treatment of cataract". Clin. Experiment. Ophthalmol. 35 (7): 664–71. PMID 17894689. I agree with it's removal from the treatment section but perhaps we should include a sentence in the 'research section'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspheric (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read it. It certainly made me more comfortable. I agree with your conclusions. This is hard work. --Mdscottis (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statins and cataract

I removed this section as 'original or primary research'

"Although statins are known for their ability to lower lipids, they are also believed to have antioxidant qualities. Oxidative stress is believed to play a role in the development of nuclear cataracts, which are the most common type of age-related cataracts. To explore the relationship between nuclear cataracts and statin use, a group of researchers treated a group of 1299 patients who were at risk of developing nuclear cataracts with statins. Their results suggest statin use in an at-risk population may be associated with a lower risk of developing nuclear cataract disease."

I did review the study together with other studies that conflicted. I think that a Wikipedia reader who was not comfortable reading the research would probably draw erroneous conclusions. The edit can be reverted if there is strong disagreement. --Mdscottis (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removal but following its re-introduction have shortened trimmed the text devoted to it. The paper isn't widely cited and hasn't been replicated in any of the other big epidemiological studies (Blue Mountain, Beijing and Rotterdam eye studies) Aspheric (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Mdscottis (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation and cataract

This is plain wrong: "ionizing radiation are thought to cause cataract through direct thermal damage". If it did, you'd have bigger problems than a cataract. Microwaves can cause damage by direct heating but also by other effects which are less well understood. Since the objective seems to be to dumb-down this page, why not delete the "radiation" section? Manfred Bartz (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes. I see that. Perhaps I'll try and correct that. Some of the other information in that section seems quite useful and it might be a pity to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'. By the way, thank you for your link to the reference generator. I wasn't aware of it. Oh we'll, that's water under the bridge I won't get back. --Mdscottis (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to the following text that has now been ammended: "cause cataract through direct thermal damage to the lens or lens cell membrane or by damage to lens cell DNA, causing a decrease in the production of protective enzymes.[10]"

The intraocular lens is one of the most radiation sensitive organs in the body. The original text is not inconsistent with the reference which states that "The mechanism of cataractogenesis includes deformation of heat-labile enzymes, such as glutathione peroxide, that ordinarily protect lens cell proteins and membrane lipids from oxidative damage. Oxidation of protein sulfhydryl groups and the formation of high-molecular-weight aggregates cause local variations in the orderly structure of the lens cells. An alternative mechanism is thermoelastic expansion through which pressure waves in the aqueous humor cause direct physical damage to the lens cells." The thermal effects are more clearly described in Yanoff and Duker. The ammended text emphasises the role of heat labile proteins. The reference is relatively old and there is currently no consesnsus regarding cause. Perhaps that should be made more clear.

I don't think there has been any intention to dumb down the article. I think the structure and quality of the science has improved. If the article is now more readable, then that is a welcome side effect.Aspheric (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Pilots and UV lighting?

The Wikipedia article states that "Most UV light from the sun is filtered out by the atmosphere and consequently airline pilots often have high rates of cataracts because of the increased levels of UV radiation in the upper atmosphere."

Huh? Pretty much all the UV is blocked by the windows in the cockpit. And the cited article reference seems to talk about cosmic radiation (which has its own epidemiological issues but is a lot more plausible) rather than UV.

Could someone or another else take a look at the reference in case I missed a paragraph or two that talked about UV? If I don't hear otherwise in a bit I'll re-edit that section and remove the UV claim. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

update 2.5 months later: I deleted the "pilots" section

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Reference of Ophthalmology

Columbia University's DRO page is an important resource containing pictures of different types of cataract with a description of each sub-type. Requests for pictures of different cataract were a repeated request on the articles feedback page. Aspheric (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

I deleted "Romans were pioneers in the health arena" because it's a direct but unattributed quotation of the BBC article referenced there. Evidence for exactly how the Romans operated on cataract is also absent in the citation, so I edited to reflect the fact that there is simply archaeological evidence for eye surgery in the Roman era. 128.40.63.52 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Jed Stevenson[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cataract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective source in UV vision

The statement under Causes->Radiation states "Ultraviolet light, specifically UVB, has been shown to cause cataracts, and some evidence indicates sunglasses worn at an early age can slow its development in later life.[14] The lens filters UV light; so once it is removed via surgery, one may be able to see UV light."

The source cited is neither scientific nor objective. It's one individual telling us all about how some product gives them UV vision, and we're supposed to play along based on their simulated images they prepared in photoshop. The page almost reads as a long-winded pitch for a product called "Crystalens".

Even if the wiki page wants to speculate with open-ended phrases such as "may be able to", this claim should be backed by more than a personal anecdote. 71.203.122.225 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Wolf, with all due respect, these edits went through Grammarly and I directly looked at them and the changes you made reintroduced grammatical errors. I'm stunned to be receiving so much resistance/reverts on this (bordering on edit warring since that's your second revert without talk page discussion) for such uncontroversial edits (I've corrected countless pages this way and improved them). I'll go through each of the grammar errors you've reintroduced and why they should be changed in list format.

1. There should be no comma after the word trauma in the trauma section. It's an unnecessary comma for a compound object. It should read "In severe blunt trauma or injuries which penetrate the eye, the capsule in which the lens sits can be damaged."
2. The comma after the word vision is unnecessary in the classification section since it's right before the dependent clause marker while.
3. The phrase "other magnification system" should read another magnification system as the word other is modifying the singular phrase magnification system.
4. The phrase "temporal-approach" should not be hyphenated.
5. In the section discussing phacoemulsification, the word liquid is missing an article (such as "a" or "the") before it. This should be revised. The same error applies to the word collapse in the same section under irrigation and aspiration and for the word application (when discussing anti-inflammatory drops) and growth (should be the growth or a growth depending on context) both of which occur in the complications section.
6. The word phacoemulsification in the surgery section does not need a comma after it since this is a compound predicate. The same rule applies to the unnecessary comma following the word surgery in the postoperative care subsection and the word place in the complications section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to resolve these trivial disagreements without wasting a lot of time, but no such luck (as is typical in Wikpedia). Sorry, at this point I still strongly disagree in 3 of 6 cases, and in the case of "mono focal" you didn't mention.

1. The comma is appropriate because the following phrase introduces a new subject not previously mentioned, whereas the preceding phrase continues a discussion from the previous two sentences; a change of subject is typically emphasized in speech with a pause, which in writing becomes a comma.
2. The comma is not necessary, but its appropriate due to the length of the sentence. A speaker will typically not utter a long sentence without pausing somewhere.
3. "other magnification system" is understood as being possibly plural, i.e., referring to other system(s), so does not need to be treated as singular, despite the "(s)" not being shown.
4. I'll drop my objection to this change. Google Scholar gives one hit for "temporal-approach phacoemulsification probe" and zero for "temporal approach phacoemulsification probe", but a regular Google search turns up many examples of the latter (a lot of them are reproductions of the same text).
5. The articles "a" before "liquid" and "the" before "collapse" are grammatically unnecessary, since "liquid" can be viewed as a state of matter (not an object), and "collapse" as a process (not an event). Also, there is no reason to assume that that just one "Application" is all that's needed, so it shouldn't be viewed as strictly singular. Again, "Growth" is being used as a process, so it shouldn't be singular.
6. Again, we typically break up long sentences with pauses/commas, although it's not required. These examples may be borderline cases.
7. "mono" on its own typically means mononucleosis; the prefix "mono" is not separated from the word it modifies; see dictionaries. WolfmanSF (talk)

Knock it off you two. This discussion is pathetic and completely off-topic. Maybe you both need a WP:Wikibreak so you can spend more time with family and friends.Jkokavec (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jkokavec, do not speak to me in a condescending manner. I took this to the talk page to resolve the issue per Wikipedia guidelines. This is silly that these minor grammar changes are being repeatedly reverted by Wolf to the point of near edit warring. Jkokavec, If you have nothing meaningful to contribute, then perhaps you should keep your comments to yourself. Wolf, I didn't mention monofocal because I obviously decided to leave that alone. Just because a pause occurs in typical speech does not mean that's how it's written in proper English. There are many times when people speak a certain way and feel like there should be a pause but that does not always translate to a written comma. The arguments you made above are ridiculous and show me you don't intend to engage in a meaningful way so I'm not going to discuss this any further. It's a waste of my time trying to better the cataract page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: I have contributed with medically and scientifically relevant facts. None of the readers of this page care about your trivial nuances of grammatical correctness. Why don't you contribute something important relating to cataracts themselves? Jkokavec (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: I reviewed the Wolf's latest changes, and agree that the way he has it is probably better, and that the edits were not fixing "errors". I did revert his hyphen removal, however, as that hyphen in temporal-approach was very helpful in parsing that noun phrase that is was part of. And I made a few other changes that I think help. Dicklyon (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it helpful to have that hyphen? Please explain. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "temporal approach phacoemulsification probe" is not a familiar one. The reader would not be expected to immediate recognize it, nor understand that "temporal approach" is a compound modifying "phacoemulsification probe", until after working out what it means. By adding a hyphen, as "temporal-approach phacoemulsification probe", the parse is immediately obvious to the reader, even if the meaning is still not. See Hyphen#Compound_modifiers and MOS:hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See similar discussion here; IMO, this is a tempest in a teapot. If you're going to edit here, you'd better get used to being reverted. All the best, Miniapolis 00:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

See Cataract surgery is not readily available in many countries, which is especially true for women, those living in rural areas, and those who cannot read. "Why would ppl who cannot read be more unlikely to find medical centres or doctors?" This question was asked in the article. I moved it to here. QuackGuru (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a question, it is a clarify tag ... it shows people that the text needs clarifying.

The reason= can be a question if that expresses the direction in which clarification of the point might be achieved

It was a revert, because Doc took out two edits with one.

All someone needs to do is clarify it ... It is a ridiculous statement "Cataract surgery is not readily available ... [for] those who cannot read" and needs clarification.

For example, it is probably not literacy, but sight ... Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot clarify what the source does not say. If you have a better wording that is sourced then please share it with me. The source states "This review shows that coverage continues to be a problem in many countries, especially for the female population, those residing in rural areas and those who are illiterate."[1] I have a copy of the PDF file. Under the heading "Risk factors for blindness" it says "The major risk factors include age, illiteracy and rural residence."[2] It also says "Blindness was also found to be associated with illiteracy and was more common in rural area and more prevalent in plains than in hilly areas."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes further details simply are not known. We can only say what is known. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like all observational studies, this study merely suggests possible associations between survey subgroups and rates of cataract surgery. It is only observational. It does not suggest any causal relationship between the data. Have a look at these other amusing examples: http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Jkokavec (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is EXACTLY my point.

The thing which needed clarification was "is it illiteracy, or sight being affected by catarcacts"

So, it is illiteracy

Now, put right the edits you two keep reverting. When u revert, MAKE SURE you are only reverting what u consider to be bad edits.

When someone points out your reverts are chaning two or more edits, instead of the one you disagree with, PUT IT RIGHT

Or expect this amount of ridiculous nonsense because you couldn't be bothered to fix it. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so you want it changed to "those who do not know how to read". Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to have that as two sentences rather than one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cataract. 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/20140605064801/http://14.139.159.4:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1638/1/CDMOPTH00032.pdf to http://14.139.159.4:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1638/1/CDMOPTH00032.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30544-5 JFW | T@lk 20:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

example of...vision with cataracts photo is all wrong.

The photo that is supposed to show what things look like to a person with cateracts is all wrong. It shows an image that is out of focus. Cateracts don't de-focus the image. A person with cateracts sees the world as if through a fog.

VF-14: Please elaborate, this is another "tear your hair out try to find" term not explained in wikipedia

I had to do an internet search to find a definition of this term since it is not in wikipedia, much less the article itself, and found the following: "Conclusions.: The VF-14 is a valid, reliable, and unidimensional questionnaire for use in a German population. These findings contribute to the growing evidence base for second generation patient reported outcome measures in ophthalmology, and support the use of the German VF-14 in tertiary eye clinics in Germany to capture the impact of visual impairment on visual function from the patient's perspective and to inform low vision rehabilitation and interventions."

Well! I'll be darned! I'm still at a loss to know what a VF-14 is that is referred to in this article.

C'mon you guys who write articles for us uneducated plain people who just want to know stuff, give us a break from your scientific gobbledygook and jargon, I only had eight years full time in college in the "hard" sciences. Linstrum (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile viewing issues

When viewing the page on mobile view, the comparison differentiates between the two images of the children with a football by using "left" and "right", although they are not parallel but one atop the other when using mobile view. Should the wording be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.91.21 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody will develop cataracts at some point in their lives

We often read "Everybody will develop cataracts at some point in their lives."[4] . Mention if that is true. Jidanni (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention which part is the cataract on first image

The first image caption needs to mention which part is the cataract. Jidanni (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catract

Say me in vice 45.123.220.200 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]