Talk:Hyperkinesia

Merge with Hyperkinesia?

I believe that hyperkinesia is the same thing as hyperkinesis. There are separate articles for these words. If they are indeed the same, the articles should be merged. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as I was diagnosed as Hyperkinetic back in the 1970s and it would seem to fall under what is called ADHD now.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The hyperkinesis page now redirects to this page. --Oconneia (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mixing two different things

From a fast reading it seems that article talks about two different meanings of hyperkinesia/hipyerkinesis:

• 1: A condition equalling or similar to ADHD: all the lead is centred around this use
• 2: A neurological symptom of an increase in muscular activity: rest of the article

There should be info only on one of them in the article (probably the latter). Best solution in my opinion would be to have disambiguation link at the top of the article to ICD-10 subsection of the ADHD article. Other alternative would be to copy the lead to an article similar to "Hyperkinetic disorder (ICD-10)".

Thoughts? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we were trying to figure out how to resolve this problem - we want the article to focus on the latter, so if you'd like to help us to put in a disambiguation link or to copy the lead to that similar article that would be great, depending on which option is more fitting. Thanks for the tip! -- JCal2011 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fast comments

I have made general comments to the whole class at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Please read them carefully since some of them are applyable to this article. Some detailed below: General

• No Caps on titles. Instead of "Motorcycle Accident and Neurological Profile" should be "Motorcycle accident and neurological profile" and so on.
• Inline citations in wikipedia go after and not before the full stop of the sentence, there is no space between the full stop and the ref, and after the ref goes a space before the next sentence. A correct example would be "Hello world, I feel great today. Today is sunny."

Specific to this article

• An important problem with the article at this point is that it is not yet clear to me if sources mix the hyperkinesia-psychological and hyperkinesia-neurological terms. While the former was created here it is still talked about ADHD, attention... while I am not sure on whether the hyperkinesia of ADHD can be compared to that of Huntington's disease. What does the sources do? What do they tell us?
• The other major problem I see is that when talking about diseases authors give exccessive details in some cases: I would only explain the disease briefly, as in the case of Wilson's disease. However in the case of huntington's disease it is talked about the mechanism, prognosis, treatment... There is already an article for that and most of the info is not relevant for this article.

Right now I do not plan to continue reviewing articles in a systematic way, so if you feel comments above have been addressed or you have any specific problems leave a note at my talk page or here and I will come to check and make further comments.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The titles have been changed to no caps. --Oconneia (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Peer Review

Overall I think this article is good with a lot of information. The only thing I am worried about is the information which you presented not dealing with your topic. When you talk about diagnosis, and diseases associated with your topic, you only talk about those. A lot of the information that is present in your article is actually information which could be under another wikipedia stub. For example, you talk about ADHD and talk all about this disease. I am not sure however if this is the proper approach. I think people looking for information about ADHD can find it under that stub, and it does not need to be present in your stub. Maybe you could try to take out some of the information about the different types of diseases, and try to put more information in about your topic. The same thing goes for diagnosis. You talk about everything they look for, but many paragraphs are used just to describe the different symptoms. Again these could be attributed to different stubs. I think it is important to list these, but maybe not go into the detail which you did. I learned a lot through the article, but I feel a majority of the information comes from other topics. Maybe this is o.k. on wikipedia and I am wrong, but that is just my opinion. Hope this helps. Finnry (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

--> Thanks for the comments - we agree with you about the ADHD. In fact, it is more a psychological than neurological dysfunction so that's why we have a redirecting link to Hyperkinesis (psychology) - in the literature it turns out that the hyperkinesia in ADHD is not relevant to our topic, but since the terms hyperkinesis and hyperkinesia were once used in the diagnosis of ADHD, we had once thought it was the same condition while it is not. We are also working on condensing the information about each specific hyperkinetic disorder, so thanks for pointing that out, but it is also difficult to find literature on hyperkinesia that does not inform about each specific disorder within it. It appears to be an umbrella term for these different conditions, as far as I can tell, but certainly we will not give up on finding more information about the topic in general. Again, your feedback is much appreciated. -- JCal2011 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This article went into great detail about both the specific motor symptoms characteristic of hyperkinesia and of disorders relating to hyperkinsea. Its length was impressive, but as stated in the previous critique, a lot of the in-depth information presented seemed like it would be more relevant to other wikipedia pages (ie the details of each related disorder). I would suggest making these areas more brief and instead emphasizing only the ways in which hyperkinsia relates to these particular disorders. I would also recommend making the introduction a bit stronger, and perhaps briefly introduce more of the article's later content here. I noticed that the History section is left blank. If you meant to include information here, it may have been omitted in the editing process somehow. If not, it should just be deleted. Overall, however, the article seemed to be very well researched and laid out. Keaneybr (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

--> Thanks for pointing out the excess detail about the diseases presenting with hyperkinesia; we've since condensed that information and tried to cater it towards how it relates to hyperkinesia more dominantly. We have expanded the introduction a bit too but have tried to keep it more generalized as not to override the details of the subsequent sections. The History section was meant to be filled in, and it has since. Thanks for the feedback! JCal2011 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Great article! Your page is readable and very informative. The parts of the article I enjoyed the most were the section on diseases (some really interesting information!) and your use of images and video. I had never seen a Wikipedia article with a video embedded in it—very nice touch! One suggestion I have is to take out the bulleted list of the forms of hyperkinetic movements. Since you have the name of each in a heading followed by the description, it is unnecessary to have the list and then essentially repeat it, adding the description. You do this again in the diseases section, and in my opinion that list should also be removed. One other small thing to mention about this section is that in the dystonia information you misspell dystonia (“distonia”) once. Not a big deal, just something to fix. Overall, excellent job!

KellyCardinal (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

--> We have taken out the bulleted list of hyperkinetic movements and the diseases; it turned out to be kind of superfluous anyway. Thanks for pointing out the typo too!! JCal2011 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an extremely informative and thorough article, great job guys! I thought the section on diseases was great, as well as the incorporation of images in various different sections. I would recommend adding a little more to the introduction. I was also wondering what your plans for the history section are, will you be adding more information to it? If so, you might consider putting it towards the beginning of the article. If not, perhaps it should be removed altogether. Also, in the section listing more of the diseases, you may want to consider a way to get back to the top of the section and link to the specific disease in each section. If not, you could also remove the initial list as it takes up more space and seems repetitive. Other than those minor changes, I think this was a really great article, both informative and well-organized. Good luck with your final edits! Cynthia Cepeda(talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

--> We expanded the introduction to a certain extent but not to override the details in the rest of the article. We had intended to put content into the History section, and that was done too. For the medicine articles I believe it is supposed to be near the end, so that's why we put it there. We removed the superfluous lists too. Thanks for the feedback! JCal2011 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article. It is super informative and very easy to read and follow, especially in the way you broke up all the disorders associated with hyperkinesia. There were some spots that I thought you could add more Wiki links to terms such as dopamine and norepinephrine as well as some specific parts of the brain, just so that readers unfamiliar with neural topics can have background knowledge of what these molecules or parts of the brain are suppose to do. This is also assuming that there are articles available that can be linked to the terms. And I would make sure that the links are made in the body of paragraphs, and not in the headings of the paragraphs (Botulinum toxin). Furthermore, I really liked the detail that you use throughout the article, but it's not too technical so readers can follow along quite easily. Well done so far! Gdusing12315 (talk) 4:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

--> We tried to put in more internal links when appropriate, thanks for reminding us of that! We took the link out of the Botulinum toxin title. Thanks for the feedback! JCal2011 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

-->Thanks for the input everyone! Your advice is much appreciated and we'll look to incorporate your suggestions as appropriate :) JCal2011 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Classification

I have reviewed this article under the quality scale, and have decided the article meets the 'B' standard of quality. For more information on making the article a "Good Article" - please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Quality_scale Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project

Nice job Jessica and Lauren, the article has been improved substantially. Just a few points:

• In Signs and symptoms, you don't need the quotation marks when discussing the particular terms. In fact you have some in quotation marks and others from that same reference you don't.
• In the Diagnosis section, choreoathetosis should have a hyperlink to the WP topic, and not be in quotes.
• In the Causes section, subthalamic nucleus should be hyperlinked.

NeuroJoe (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Disease verses symptoms

Hyperkinesia is more of a symptom than a disease. WP:MEDMOS gives a slightly different outline for this type of article. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

People verses patient

We prefer to use person / people instead of patient... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyperkinesia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• Ref #7 appears to be a deadlink.
• "As defined by Hogan and Sternad, “posture” is a nonzero time period during which bodily movement is minimal." give full names of the two on first mention; also reword as "Hogan and Sternad define "posture" as a nonzero..."
• In the second definition paragraph, I'm not really a fan of all the single-word quotes; they don't seem necessary to me.
• "yet distinctly differs from both hypertonia and negative signs," negative signs doesn't need to be italicized, but also what does that mean exactly?
• Wikilink specific terms that could be beneficial. Most are, but I see a few that aren't (e.g. Friedreich's ataxia, subthalamic nucleus)
• The pathophysiology section is tough for a non-expert to read. It's something that's naturally going to be difficult to explain, but a prose fine-tuning may be beneficial here.
• There are a couple uses of "for example" in the article; remove those.
• This is only tangentially related to this article, but the pages for Hyperkinesia and Hyperkinesis both note that the other word can be used. If that's the case, couldn't both be combined into this article, since this is written in a rather broad format already?

While the article is not too far off from GA, the above issues will take a while to fix, and since this was an educational assignment for a class that ended a while ago, I don't expect this to be picked up. As a result, I'm failing this as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please Remove a Statement, Please Remove a Term

This is my first edit/action on Wikipedia. I joined specifically to address an issue on the current Hyperkinesia page. Being new, I do not want to directly edit this document without advice.

Concerning Reference #4, "Definition and Classification of Hyperkinetic Movements in Childhood". I have read the abstract and it does not reference a "psychological" component to these types of movement. The abstract begins with "Hyperkinetic movements are unwanted or excess movements that are frequently seen in children with neurologic disorders." In goes on to discuss the involuntariness of the associated disorders, or the limited ability to suppress the movement (such as in the case of tics).

Within the intro to the Wiki page states: "Many hyperkinetic disorders are psychological in nature and are typically prominent in childhood.[4]"

I humbly ask that someone with more experience consider removal of the above statement in its entirety as it cannot be substantiated. (Additionally, I address below in the aside that hyperkinesis and Hyperkinesia do not mean the same thing, they are not alternative spellings to the same condition.)

While I have not been able to locate a full copy of the article, it is reasonable to doubt that "many" hyperkinetic disorders would be classified as as psychological in the full text, given that the abstract only speaks of the physiological attributes of the most common conditions.

Additionally, the article does focus on children and in no way implies it is "prominent" to children. To repeat the opening statement of the abstract: "Hyperkinetic movements are unwanted or excess movements that are frequently seen in children with neurologic disorders."

The abstract is released by "2010 Movement Disorder Society", which is the organization that releases the Movement Disorders Journal. "The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) is a professional society of over 4500 clinicians, scientists and other healthcare..." If you go to their website movementdisorders.org and search the journal, you can find a free document titled: "10 General Approach to Hyperkinetic Movement Disorders", there is a brief acknowledgment that, in some cases, the movements could be attributed to a psychogenic origin, particularly when coupled with other unusual physical symptoms*. I could not locate any discussion of children in the 3-page document.

• There is a continuous risk for people with conditions where there is limited medical knowledge, and therefore are treated as if the cause is psychological versus a physiological origin. “Many mental hospitals are living museums of undiscovered bodily disease.” --FMR Walshe, MD.

Aside: I read some comments the suggested confusion about medical usage of the word: Hyperkinetic. Going with the most illustrative definition combo - 'excessive motion' (hyper = excessive) (kinetic = motion). The suffix -esia = implies process. Therefore Hyperkinesia is a condition whereas the movement process is excessive. Hyperkinesia is used as an umbrella term - similar to Dysautonomia - or, the equally broad 'Cardiovascular disease'. Hyperkinesia (and the condition types) are stated as a Hyperkinetic MOVEMENT Disorder.

In contrast, Hyperkinetic Disorder (a specific syndrome with diagnostic criteria) is explained as: "Hyperactivity or hyperkinesis can be defined as "an enduring disposition to behave in a restless, inattentive, distractible and disorganised fashion" (Taylor, 1994). It is thus more than motor overactivity. Diagnostically there are three main groups of symptomatology: overactivity, inattentiveness and impulsiveness." (From: Hyperkinetic disorder: assessment and treatment Mary Cameron & Peter http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/aptrcpsych/2/3/94.full.pdf)

In the above case, hyperkinesis is begin define as 'excessive action process' (hyper = excessive) (kinetic = action). The suffix -sis implies process.

With that said, I have not come across Hyperkinesia being interchanged with Hyperkinesis, except for Google definitions which implies that hyperkinesis and Hyperkinesia are interchangeable (I have since left a message with Google). I went searching Google for the specific term "Hyperkinesis movement disorder" and the only results were related to a description of the medical drug Tetrabenazine. Google would ask if I meant 'Hyperkinetic Movement Disorder'.

Thank you for your patience as I learn how to use Wikipedia Talk features. Amshaka (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Please feel free to edit the article to correct the errors you have found -- Wikipedia relies on people like you to correct problems in its articles. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)