Talk:Diabetic retinopathy

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Diabetic retinopathy.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Jonathan Jarry (September 6, 2024). "Can You Trust Dr. Wikipedia?". Office for Science and Society. Retrieved September 7, 2024. A study on how the eye disease known as diabetic retinopathy was covered by Wikipedia in 19 different languages showed that quality varied immensely, from "fair" for the English and German versions to "poor" for most of the languages consulted.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qluong2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Tense

The phrase ...90% of these new cases could be reduced if there was... should be ...90% of these new cases could be reduced if there were..TakenEd (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Light Therapy (Noctura 400)

This is a new form of treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy that is making a big difference in the management of Diabetic Retinopathy. Why can this not be covered? There is only one product out there that provides this right now and it is the Noctura 400 which has passed all of the medial trials and regulations needed. If the product name cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia then ok, however people should be allowed information about the therapy that is provided. As an online Encyclopedia you should support medical innovation that is helping to change the way such diseases can be treated in a nonintrusive way. Please can you advise on this matter and how to allow people to find out about this though Wikipedia. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctura400 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will have to be multiple independent references to show it is notable. And then someone without a conflict of interest will have to update the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the current article

Although some areas (e.g. the section on Research) of the article lack content, the article, as a whole, belongs to the category of good-quality articles. The lead section is brief and straightforward. I don’t think there is any problem with the statistics presented in the lead section. The coverage is neutral. The article did not go into details of each diagnostic techniques. However, it did not explain any technique in much detail either. Therefore, there is a well balance in that section, in particular. Subheadings and headings are used to divide the article into sections that one usually see in a medical reference book on a particular disease. This organization makes the article easy to read and search for information. All other sections besides Research have adequate amount of information and are mostly cited with reliable sources. All cited sources came from known journals, and some were from specific organizations for diabetic retinopathy. The latter sources should be critical evaluated and further supported by articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Qluong2016 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New content

User:Qluong2016 - about this diff - we base WP content on secondary sources. See WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content added was on research of the field. I would think the providing the primary sources would be more better and would allow users to know more of the ongoing research. I don't think research can be based on secondary like other sections of the article. Qluong2016 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that. You picked some recent research papers to highlight here, based on your own judgement of what is important. However, Wikipedia articles are generally based on secondary sources, like literature reviews. We do that because we rely on experts in the field to tell us what research is important - we don't make that judgement ourselves as editors nor do we argue about which editor's judgement is better for picking which research to highlight - there is no end to such a disagreement here. We rely on the published experts. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light therapy

I should raise potential conflict of interest immediately. I work for the company that produces a light mask to treat diabetic retinopathy but as a long term user of Wikipedia (mainly reading rather than editing) I know that its not for advertising and I of course fully agree with that. My previous edits that cite Noctura 400 were not meant to be advertising but I can see how it may be viewed as such and I thank the editor for removing these links that could go against the WP:SPAM policy.

However as there is now one light therapy treatment available through either health services or through private purchase. Research and user data (privileged and not on the internet) is showing very positive results. There are still some elements in research to assist in further proving clinical efficacy but the treatment is on sale and available to anyone in the world. Due to the COI maybe the edits shouldn't come from me but I'm keen to have the treatment in the correct area of this page i.e. as a treatment rather than research. Keen to read others views

Best

Alex Northernalex (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not the same user as "Noctura 400" above

Thanks for your note! When I removed those links I carefully read the sources that were already used in the article; I also searched pubmed and also looked at NICE, NHS Choices, the EMA, and the FDA websites to try to find other MEDRS sources. I didn't find any more. So we can't say any more than we do now about whether this is safe and effective nor it being available for sale. Unless I missed something... Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Also thanks for searching. Must have taken a while so thank you for your dedication! :)

There's a fair bit of information on the web about it and safety/efficacy has been proven (mask has CE and there has been some clinical trials) Light therapy has been used since around 2010 in research and the current review articles that discuss light therapy do mention light as a treatment

^[1]

"Recently, a few clinical studies have also shown that preventing dark adaptation by suppressing rods with 500-nm light source at night decreases the rate of progression of early diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy in the short-term. We await the results of a large two-year multi-centre trial (CLEOPATRA trial) to evaluate the long-term effects of decreasing dark adaptation by applying a 500nm light source"

This review discusses efficacy and safety for short term treatment but notes that the authors are waiting for results of a much larger multi-centre trial. It also mentions its a treatment for early DR and also maculopathy. We are involved in CELOPATRA but were not involved in any way in the writing of this article so its secondary?

^[2] ^[3]

Also discuss light therapy as a treatment.

Regarding the specific mask/treatment we've developed, you can purchase it from the outside clinic

http://outsideclinic.co.uk/sight-test/our-products/diabetic-retinopathy/

or a number of Boots stores (pilot sales scheme at the moment so not on the web). Its listed as a treatment on the Fight for Sight A-Z of eye conditions page (in the treatments section)

http://www.fightforsight.org.uk/about-the-eye/a-z-eye-conditions/diabetic-retinopathy/

Kind Regards

References

Alex Northernalex (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to add

Noctura 400 has completed a number of clinical trials and is supported by a large technical file. Not all of the data has been published for reasons of commercial confidentiality , but it has been assessed by a notified body for CE purposes. The mask has been awarded its CE Mark as a Class IIa medical device, based on proven safety and efficacy and as such is licensed for clinical use in the UK and a number of other countries.

The NHS are evaluating the device in a number of locations and NHS Trusts can purchase through an EU compliant Framework which has been awarded by Commercial Procurement Services. The Framework means that all NHS bodes can use it on a call off basis without the need for further compliance checks.

See F027 here http://coch-cps.co.uk/our-services/our-frameworks/

Northernalex (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content you are proposing is not supported by that source; everything in WP needs to be supported by reliable sources. Again please do read WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. However light therapy is not only being researched, it is available as a treatment and there are patients using it as a treatment every day. To have it only in research is incorrect. Understand WP:PROMO which is why I'm not making the change myself. Northernalex (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have proposed content that is not supported by sources; please don't do that. The way things work here, is that content must be supported by reliable sources. From the perspective of Wikipedia, we have no deadline here in WP and we can wait for good sources to add content. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I did propose a source, an NHS Trust website (that shows that the treatment is not only in research) but understand that may not meet the WP requirements for a 'good source'. As you say, we have to wait until publications appear that fit the requirements. Thank you again for your help Northernalex (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diabetic retinopathy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"At least 90% of new cases could be reduced with proper treatment and monitoring of the eyes"

This statistic has been parroted all over the internet, but in the linked source I cannot see any mention of this number. I would be glad to be proven wrong if anyone can actually point to where it is presented.

Joon-Ho Son (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Vujosevic, et al. 2020 Lancet Diabetes Endocrin. has quite a bit on research into screening programs and future screening modalities. Could be used for the Research section. Ajpolino (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015254a.html

[2] ttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11892-015-0686-2

[3] ttp://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/68/3/872

[1]

[2]

[3]