Talk:Pseudobulbar affect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pseudobulbar affect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

merger proposal

I suggest a merger proposal with Labile affect. These are two articles about the same thing, and actually, this article looks like it is copied & glued from the labile affect article. Unless anybody has any good arguments against it, I'll do it tomorrow.
PS My choice would be to merge into this article, because the "google test" gives many more hits for "pseudobulbar affect" than for "labile affect". Lova Falk talk 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. (I originated the page) --PaulWicks (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

from Pathological laughing and crying to here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I agree with above suggestion, but not sure how to do. Assistance is appreciated.meleik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.185.213 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional incontinence

I know this isn't a discussion board, but that phrase is hilarious. Oh, and I agree with the merger proposal.209.6.52.213 (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FDA approval and "preferred term"

Second paragraph under "Terminology":

The antecedent to pronoun "this" is unclear.

Do predictions, especially ones about preferences, belong in an encyclopedia? The same purpose can be fulfilled by stating: "In deliberations over treatments, the FDA uses the term _______ to name what is being treated, thereby suggesting that the term is or will be a medical standard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdust (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side effects of fad medications

PBA is the latest fad in pharmaceuticals, where existing cheap drugs are cheaply re-purposed to give them new and proprietary (patented) life, in this case patent number 8,227,484 and two other patents, based on just one or two research studies, possibly conducted by researchers funded by the company. This activity, while not particularly difficult or costly for the company, is potentially very profitable if physicians prescribe the product under pressure from patients who demand it based on glossy media advertising.

If we are going to allow Avanir Pharmaceuticals to use Wikipedia to help re-purpose Dextromethorphan (in combination with quinidine sulfate), at least let's add a section on the side effects and the allergy problem of this often misused cough suppressant. A list of adverse effects and 19 pages of prescribing information are published by Avanir. David Spector (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two new references describe serious Avanir difficulties and settlement of one patent dispute. Two other legal disputes are pending. David Spector (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i agreed that this section's 2nd paragraph was pretty much word-for-word the same as the designed-to-stoke-the-fears-of-the-gullible-and-paranoid TV commercial the drug company has out. and i agree that WP shouldn't be used as a free advertising space. but i looked into the sources you put here, and, frankly, couldn't find anything. i read thru a bunch of pages on the results of all the studies that've been done, and saw nothing 'unusual.' just the now-normal possible side effects that seem to accompany nearly every medication. i didn't see anything at all about allergies.

the "patent woes" talked about in the 2013 article are...being addressed or have been addressed, as the company conducts more and more testing, trying to get its drugs approved for a whole slew of diseases/disorders/disasters. the "legal disputes" have all been resolved (i think). they were companies, mostly from outside the u.s., who were challenging Avanir for taking generic drugs, making a minor tweak/change to them, and then patenting them. for the most part, i think Avanir won. and will probably continue to do so, as multiple drug companies do the same. with the new "thing" to, i guess, add a bit of "heavy water" to the drug, then get a patent, then push it as hard as possible by panicking the public into demanding it from their doctors.

anyway, i rewrote that section. i added a bunch of info that was out there. fully sourced. for those who take the time to read it, they might find they have other options; and they might realize that the shkreli-walking-anal-discharge-thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Colbey84 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone wants to argue that emotional lability is restricted to PBA...

See this and this etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will argue that considering PBA as associated with Borderline Personality Disorder is incorrect

I have made an alteration to the original text. For some reason, "emotional instability" started to be called "emotional lability" (similarly "labile affect" (PBA) reads similarly to "affective lability" (Borderline). The link that was provided to confirm the association of PBA as an attribute of BPD was "http://mentalhealth.com/home/dx/borderlinepersonality.html. Please search keyword "liability" and read the expand examples; it does not use "emotional lability" but it does refer to "emotional instability". I could not find the use of the stand alone word "lability" but I did find "liability" a few times: "...the mood is unpredictable and capricious. There is a liability to outbursts of emotion and an incapacity to control the behavioural explosions. There is a tendency to quarrelsome behavior and to conflicts with others..." A BPD person's labile emotional displays are in accordance to the emotions that person is affected with (i.e. I am sad, so I cry) vs PBA (i.e. I am scared, so I laugh). BPD has fluctuating moods, the liability is from those rapid changes. With PBA, the sudden outbursts of laugh/cry seem like fluctuating strong emotions but the emotional state of the person is unrepresentative of their internal emotional state. There is a WIKI on "emotional lability" that I will seek to make alterations to expand on the complexities. The term confusion is heavily populated on the web. Addressing it on Wikipedia will help others realize the distinctions. Suggested review to demonstrate another similar term for PBA being confused with another disorder: "Labile Affect" https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/labile-affect/ vs "affective lability" https://apsard.org/affective-lability-or-emotional-dysregulation-diagnostic-overlaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goleniewski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling link

If pseudobulbar affect is also referred to as emotional lability, why is the latter a link to another page? Bruce Mardle (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Emotional lability into Pseudobulbar affect

Pseudobulbar affect's lede indicates that these terms are synonyms. If you disagree, please edit the articles to indicate their relationship. Daask (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disgree with merge. I think the current wording is fine in explaining how it can cause emotional lability, but not all causes of lability are due to pseudobulbar affect. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. These are clearly different concepts, as Tom (LT) stated above.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge.Pseudobulbar affect is primary neurological while emotional lability is psychiatric.Merging the two articles would make everyone confused Fel23 (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge - PBA is a specific syndrome whereas emotional lability is a symptom with many causes. If anything, the emotional lability article could be merged into emotional dysregulation, where the former is an older term. Kirby777 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]