Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies

2021 update

@Ceoil, Colin, Lukelahood, and WhatamIdoing: There have been quite a few advancements in knowledge of DLB, and I have incorporated multiple 2021 reviews with these edits. Some of the new developments resulted in real changes to the article (better understanding of survival time after diagnosis, reflecting new knowledge of delay in diagnosis and the limits of the MMSE to detect cognitive fluctuations, which must be emphasized, and the deficits more common to DLB compared to AZ, along with a few medication updates and a new review about the lived experience, as well as some better wording based on the newer reviews). Note that Bentley is CC-by-4.0 so I was able to use some direct passages with attribution. Please have a look in case I have messed up anything :) Research has really accelerated since the 2017 consensus guidelines, and the 2020 guidelines recognizing the prodromal phase, so I will need to keep a closer eye on new research going forward; please let me know if you see anything! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible good picture to put in article

SandyGeorgia,

What do you think about figure 1A in this creative commons licensed article? It is relevant to the text in Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies#Differential, Alzheimer subsection talking about hippocampus. Could be relevant elsewhere too.

Lukelahood (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Lukelahood ummm … well … I had not realized that article was CC-by-4.0. All the time I spent paraphrasing with my dreadful prose, and I could have used more of the original wording (which I may go back and do now).

I like both 1A and 1B, but I defer to the image master Colin, as my knowledge of images is worse than my prose. Thanks for all your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and put three images in. Please let me know what you think. They all illustrate points made in the text (figure 1B didn't as far as I could tell...)Lukelahood (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You are/they are wonderful! Just last week, I was casting about looking for images, and coming up with nothing. I viewed the image layout on my desktop, iPad and iPhone, and changed up the layout to something that views better on the iPhone, as WAID tells us most people access articles these days via mobile devices. If anyone finds it not optimal, we can switch back to your version. Thank you ever so much, and may you have a joyous and healthful holiday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

works for me (I just read and work from desktop). Glad you like them. Happy holidays to you too.Lukelahood (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect license on Bentley ?

Diannaa after Lukelahood pointed out (in the thread just above this one) CC by 4 on another source in this article, upon re-reading some old information from you, I am concerned that I may have done the Bentley additions wrong. The source (Bentley) is:

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jan.14932

I added the source to Works cited with CC by 4 attribution here, and copied text here, here, and here and then adjusted here. But upon re-examining Bentley, I don’t think I used the right license. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. If you hover over the words "Creative Commons Attribution" in the paper, you will see a hyperlink to the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. So it looks correct— Diannaa (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Whew, thanks, Diannaa. I must have done that when I was on my “real” computer, but since I am now iPad editing, and my iPad won’t hover, I couldn’t see the CC by 4, so wondered where the heck I had gotten it. Sorry for the false alarm, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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)