Talk:Nasal polyp/Archive 1

Treatment

"Nasal polyps are most often treated with steroids, topical or oral, but can also be treated with surgical methods."

Not according to what our doctor tells us. Also not according with this site: http://www.surgerydoor.co.uk/so/detail2.asp?level2=Nasal%20Polyp%20Removal

"If you leave things as they are, the polyps will always get worse. Some tablets and nasal sprays shrink polyps a little. The polyps will always get bigger once the tablets or sprays are stopped. The only way to get rid of polyps is with an operation."

My doctor said the same thing, he said the treatments may reduce the size of the polyps it's impossible for them to actually physically remove the polyp.

Also this site: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/nasalpolyps.htm

Well my sinuses were "more than 95% blocked" by polyps, and nearly seven years ago I had surgery to remove them. It was spectacularly successful. My doctor sort of said the same thing as yours, but not exactly the same. He advised me to do the nasal rinse and the mometasone furoate monohydrate ("nasonex" or equivalent) spray to MINIMISE the regrowth of the polyps. I do the rinse and the nasonex every night, and it seems to be working . My usage of anti-histamines to treat "stuffy nose" has gone down by ... well, I would say a factor of ten or more. My sense of smell has partially returned - it was pretty well zero before the surgery. I no longer mouth breathe whilst sleeping. So both the surgery (for removal) and the steroid/saline (for minimising regrowth) have been successful. All anecdotal, of course, just like yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.208.177 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Orbit matter"

In the current version, in the sentence: Sinus surgery requires great amount of precision as this involves risk of damage to orbit matter, the term "orbit matter" is not explained or wikified. Can someone please edit this to include a layperson's language or link to a related article on the Wikipedia that explains it? Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article here I believe is the 'orbit' its referring to. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Orbit_%28anatomy%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.21.98 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Someone (/u/daveskii) recently posted this image (http://i.imgur.com/Ktis93oh.jpg) on reddit. Might be a better image/supplement as it better shows the actual subject matter, and is not mostly nose and hair (like the current image).

My feeling is that the current images are better given that they more accurately provide a context for the polyps (and are a little more believable ...). Klbrain (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

note

Work Plan:

I think this article has a decent foundation in terms of sections included, but I would like to expand upon most of them. I would like to focus on the signs and symptoms section as I think some of the information provided here is out of place and that this section is incomplete. I would like to emphasize the different types and locations of the nasal polyps and how this affects the presentation and treatment options. Many of the references presented are older, so I would like to see if any new information in regards to pathophysiology and treatment is available. I would like to expand upon the histologic and radiologic aspects of diagnosis and the surgical management options that are available. I will see if I find anything in regards to complications that can arise from nasal polyps or the treatments we use to fix them. Overall, I just plan on expanding upon every section presented and then adding additional sections. Many of the references included in the original article appear older, so I plan to see what information came from those articles to ensure that information is still accurate. To gather further information, I plan on relying primarily on ClinicalKey for meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and textbook chapters. I will also search other resources like PubMed for additional systematic reviews or meta-analyses. I will also use UpToDate to find additional information and articles. I will embed additional links to other Wiki pages whenever I can. I think this is a great way to be more efficient in writing this article so I can focus specifically on nasal polyps with a link to any additional topics that may arise. After receiving orientation on avoiding the use of jargon, I hope to be more conscious of my word choice when writing this article. It can be difficult to discuss medical topics with the lay population in mind, but this a skill that I need to improve upon because this is what we will need to do daily with our future patients. I hope that by being aware and with the help of the peer review process, I can make this article accessible to anyone who would want to read it. Lindseyshehee (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Lindsey Shehee[reply]

a well thought-out plan--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any images that would improve your article? AngeladMD (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have! I included one in the diagnosis section and plan to look for another picture to help explain some of the anatomyLindseyshehee (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated work plan: So far, I have worked on updating the signs/symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. I ended up removing a majority of the information that was already present and rewriting these sections. I would like to try and find information distinguishing the symptoms based on the type of nasal polyp, but so far, my sources have not provided this information. It seems like the consensus on the pathophysiology is becoming more certain, so I plan to expand on the causes section of the article to include more of this information. I also want to focus more on the specific conditions associated with nasal polyps and why these conditions lead to this clinical entity. I also want to read more on the specifics of surgical management and include this information. Lindseyshehee (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We generally have pathophysiology as a separate section from cause. Have split the existing text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-Review

I have been asked to peer-review this article as part of my Wiki Ed course. First off, I would like to say that I find this page to be very visually appealing. You did a great job with adding multimedia that make the topic easier to understand. You also used reliable sources and presented the content in a neutral and balanced way. I like the changes you made to the section on chronic rhinosinusitis, which was previously pretty technically dense. Your inclusion of a brief description of symptoms of CRS makes the section much easier for readers to understand. Lastly, I am impressed by the succinctness of your article. That is something I could definitely apply more to my own assigned article.

As for recommendations for improving the article, one thing I noticed is that the Lead is cited almost entirely by a single source. I would recommend finding additional sources to support that information. This would, in turn, strengthen the quality of the page overall.

I would also recommend moving the diagram of the paranasal sinuses to the “Types” subheading. I think that readers will have an easier time understanding the locations of antrochoanal polyps and ethmoidal polyps if the reference image is immediately in-line with that text.

If I were reading this article as a non-medically inclined person, I would probably be googling “nasal endoscopy” to see what to expect at the doctor’s office. It might be beneficial to upload an image that shows what the office procedure/instrument looks like, or to link to an appropriate page on Wikipedia (if there is one).

The last (and probably most important) recommendation I could make would be to continue to edit the Treatment section. It might be helpful for readers to have more information about the outcome/efficacy of treatment options (e.g., does the treatment reduce the size of polyps or only relieve symptoms?) I believe the Color Atlas of Family Medicine (available through AccessMedicine) has some good information on this topic. My other recommendation for improving the Treatment section would be to incorporate some information from major published studies. Cochrane has several systematic-reviews/meta-analyses regarding nasal polyposis if you have the time to check it out.

Thank you for inviting me to have a look at your work! I hope my ideas are helpful in some way. You have done a wonderful job editing this page. Keep up the good work! Morgangoodyear (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed tags added

@Lindseyshehee: Great work so far with the edits to improve the page. I added a couple of citation needed tags today to the area you were editing. If possible for medical articles, please try to use a citation after every sentence, even if it is the same source twice. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

Why was it removed from the lead / summary?[1]

Anyway have restored it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is a nice review[2]. It is freely viewable. Why replace it with none freely avaliable textbooks? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for updating the lead and changing some of the sources was to utilize the sources that were used in the remainder of the article. I feel that this section should represent a summary of the article and, therefore, should use the same articles. As far as the epidemiology, I have changed some of the lead but included that information back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseyshehee (talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the lead and body do not need to be the same.

While textbooks are fine, if there are equally good review articles under an open license we tend to use them preferably to improve readers access to the sources.

You removed this from the lead "About 4% of people currently have nasal polyps while up to 40% of people develop them at some point in their life.^[1] They most often occur after the age of 20 and are more frequent in males than females.^[1]"

Which was all the epidemiology in the lead.[3]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what ref supports the "onset at 42" statement[4]?

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Newton, JR; Ah-See, KW (April 2008). "A review of nasal polyposis". Therapeutics and clinical risk management. 4 (2): 507–12. doi:10.2147/tcrm.s2379. PMC 2504067. PMID 18728843.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Would a CAT scan of polyps be useful here?

I have a cancer for which I am being treated with an immunotherapy. One of the side effects of the immuno is inflammation of the mucous membranes. As a result of this, I have massive polyps, which I am shortly about to have surgically removed. In the interim, my surgeon has ordered a CAT scan to show the extent of the polyps, so he can plan the surgery. Would such CAT scan images be useful here? The pathology company has given me the OK to post htem here, providing I remove all identifying information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E422:3C01:88FF:2C0C:2E56:DB61 (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please rememeber to upload [5] here, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[New2008-1] Newton, JR; Ah-See, KW (April 2008). "A review of nasal polyposis". Therapeutics and clinical risk management. 4 (2): 507–12. doi:10.2147/tcrm.s2379. PMC 2504067. PMID 18728843.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[1]