Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies

Images removed

I have reverted here the addition of two images which are either dated or misleading:

• File:Epidemiology of dementia en.jpg is cited to a dated (2010) review of young onset dementia, PMID 20650401. It's not applicable to this article, and I question whether it should be used anywhere (see WP:MEDDATE). We don't have an article on early-onset dementia, and if we did, I'm still not sure this data is up-to-date. With DLB, the best (indeed most) reviews never show a diagram relative to other dementias, as all recognize that we don't really know the prevalence as well as this diagram implies. "Early-onset" DBL is almost never treated in the major reviews, so this image here is also WP:UNDUE.
• The multiple image showing clozapine and mirtazapine is also unhelpful as UNDUE. Treatment of DLB symptoms is very complex, and adding those particular drugs to this article does not improve the article. The AChEIs have the best record with DLB, but even showing them would leave the wrong impression that DLB can easily be treated with meds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that the image is labeled “Epidemiology of dementia” but sourced to a dated review of “early onset” dementia; the image is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Colin do you know how to get that grossly inaccurate image removed from Commons? If not, can the title be changed to indicate it relates to a ten-year old review of “early-onset” dementia only? See my post at med talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pereoptic your chart has 14% for "other" but the paper Sandy claims is the source has 19%. I know that if you add up the other segments you are left with 14% but this is because the other segments are rounded, and instead if you were to add up the raw figures, then I think 19% would be the correct value to show for "other". Can you please fix this and add the source to the file description page if Sandy is correct:

• Rossor, MN; Fox, NC; Mummery, CJ; Schott, JM; Warren, JD (August 2010). "The diagnosis of young-onset dementia". The Lancet. Neurology. 9 (8): 793–806. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70159-9. PMC 2947856. PMID 20650401.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)

Also can you request the file name be changed to "Epidemiology of young-onset dementia en.jpg". If you need help with this let me know. If the file is not used on any Wikipedia, and we can't find a use for it (e.g. because the data is way too old) then it is possible for you (Pereoptic) to request it be deleted. It is harder for other users to request deletion simply on grounds of being uselessly out-of-date. Alternative, can you find newer data? -- Colin°^Talk 13:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: What you said about the statistics shown in the picture is correct. I did more research on the history of its statistics and found that even its history is older than 2010. [1] I will do the more thorough investigation to see if there are any more up-to-date statistics. good luck Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   14:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

File has been moved to File:Epidemiology of young-onset dementia 2010 en.jpg -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Guerillero. Pereoptic my suggestion would be to request deletion. PMID 24007775 is a newer source (still dated, perhaps someone can find newer still). Data from 2003 is just not helpful in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: First I try to upload a new version based on the new statistics, if it is not adjustable on the same image, I will request deletion. Thanks for the link you sent. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

improve the infobox

Hi SandyGeorgia, Hope you are well.

Do you think it is good to add the management section to the infobox? Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   11:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think it helpful to have an infobox at all, as they don't reflect nuance, can't typically reflect full or accurate information, and often convey misinformation. But, they are covered undered Arbom discretionary sanctions and we seem stuck with them in many cases following the arbitration. I usually opt for the least amount of information possible in them, to convey the least amount of misinformation. Medication is already in the infobox; what else did you want to add? I don't see how non-medication strategies can be stated in two or three words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The part I intend to add to the infobox is the management of RBD symptoms and to some extent the management of orthostatic hypotension.

For example: use medication sensitivity notices, improve bedroom safety, lowering the height of the bed, Physiotherapy, avoiding alcohol Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   06:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That is excess detail for an infobox in my opinion. Not everyone has every symptom (DLB is different for everyone), and where do we draw the line on how much to include in the infobox? Why those few in particular when there are paragraphs of suggestions of things one can try to help with specific symptoms? The medications are more generalized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:Medications are also used to manage some of the symptoms, so should we eliminate them as well? Since RBD is a very common symptom of DLB, it is certainly a good idea to add its non-drug management method and some others, I mentioned in the answer above, to the infobox. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   07:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)