Talk:Autism spectrum: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:39, 13 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect.
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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 30 days

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference.

The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as:

Many common ideas about autism have been researched and either confirmed or refuted.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis.
Therefore it is against Wikipedia policy for views without scientific support, such as the belief that autism is caused by vaccination, to be presented as a controversy in a science article like autism.

Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between vaccination and autism?

A1: This association has been researched, and is mentioned in the page - specifically with some variant of the statement "there is no convincing evidence that vaccination causes autism and an association between the two is considered biologically implausible". Despite strong feelings by parents and advocates, to the point of leaving children unvaccinated against serious, sometimes deadly diseases, there is simply no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the two. Among the organizations that have reviewed the evidence between vaccination and autism are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (United States), Institute of Medicine (United States), National Institutes of Health (United States), American Medical Association, the Cochrane Collaboration (British/international), British Medical Association (Britain), National Health Service (United Kingdom), Health Canada (Canada) and the World Health Organization (international). The scientific community took this issue seriously, investigated the hypothesis, designed and published many studies involving millions of children, and they all converged on a lack of association between autism and vaccination. Given the large number of children involved, the statistical power of these studies was such that any association, even an extremely weak one, would have been revealed. Continuing to press the issue causes unnecessary anguish for parents and places their children, and other children at risk of deadly diseases (that disproportionately harm the unvaccinated).^[1]^[2]^[3]

Q2: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between thiomersal, aluminum, squalene, toxins in vaccines?

A2: Thiomersal has also been investigated and no association is found between the two. Vaccines are heavily reviewed for safety beforehand, and since they are given to millions of people each year, even rare complications or problems should become readily apparent. The amount of these additives in each vaccine is minuscule, and not associated with significant side effects in the doses given. Though many parents have advocated for and claimed harm from these additives, without a plausible reason to expect harm, or demonstrated association between autism and vaccination, following these avenues wastes scarce research resources that could be better put to use investigating more promising avenues of research or determining treatments or quality-of-life improving interventions for the good of parents and children. Specifically regarding "toxins", these substances are often unnamed and only vaguely alluded to - a practice that results in moving the goalposts. Once it is demonstrated that an ingredient is not in fact harmful, advocates will insist that their real concern is with another ingredient. This cycle perpetuates indefinitely, since the assumption is generally a priori that vaccines are harmful, and no possible level of evidence is sufficient to convince the advocate otherwise.

Q3: Why doesn't this article discuss X treatment for autism?

A3: For one thing, X may be discussed in the autism therapies section. Though Wikipedia is not paper and each article can theoretically expand indefinitely, in practice articles have restrictions in length due to reader fatigue. Accordingly, the main interventions for autism are dealt with in summary style while minor or unproven interventions are left to the sub-article.

Q4: My child was helped by Y; I would like to include a section discussing Y, so other parents can similarly help their children.

A4: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; despite how important or effective an intervention may seem to be, ultimately it must be verified in reliable, secondary sources that meet the guidelines for medical articles. Personal testimonials, in addition to generally being considered unreliable in scientific research, are primary sources and can only be synthesized through inappropriate original research. If the intervention is genuinely helpful for large numbers of people, it is worth discussing it with a researcher, so it can be studied, researched, published and replicated. When that happens, Wikipedia can report the results as scientific consensus indicates the intervention is ethical, effective, widely-used and widely accepted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can not be used to predict or promote promising interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. Without extensive testing, Wikipedia runs the risk of promoting theories and interventions that are either invalid (the Refrigerator mother hypothesis), disproven (secretin and facilitated communication),^[4] or dangerous (chelation therapy, which resulted in the death of a child in 2005).^[5]

Q5: Why doesn't this article discuss Z cause of autism? Particularly since there is this study discussing it!

A5: No ultimate cause has been found for autism. All indications are that it is a primarily genetic condition with a complex etiology that has to date eluded discovery. With thousands of articles published every year on autism, it is very easy to find at least one article supporting nearly any theory. Accordingly, we must limit the page to only the most well-supported theories, as demonstrated in the most recent, reliable, high-impact factor sources as a proxy for what is most accepted within the community.

Q6: Why does/doesn't the article use the disease-based/person-first terminology? It is disrespectful because it presents people-with-autism as flawed.

A6: This aspect of autism is controversial within the autistic community. Many consider autism to be a type of neurological difference rather than a deficit. Accordingly, there is no one preferred terminology. This article uses the terms found in the specific references.

Q7: Why doesn't the article emphasize the savant-like abilities of autistic children in math/memory/pattern recognition/etc.? This shows that autistic children aren't just disabled.

A7: Savant syndrome is still pretty rare, and nonrepresentative of most of those on the autistic spectrum. Research has indicated that most autistic children actually have average math skills.^[6]

Q8: Why doesn't the article mention maternal antibody related autism or commercial products in development to test for maternal antibodies?

A8: There are no secondary independent third-party reviews compliant with Wikipedia's medical sourcing policies to indicate maternal antibodies are a proven or significant cause of autism, and commercial products in testing and development phase are unproven. See sample discussions here, and conditions under which maternal antibody-related posts to this talk page may be rolled back or otherwise reverted by any editor.

References

^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2008). "Outbreak of measles--San Diego, California, January-February 2008" (Full free text). MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 57 (8): 203–206. PMID 18305451.
^ Parker, A. A.; Staggs, W.; Dayan, G. H.; Ortega-Sánchez, I. R.; Rota, P. A.; Lowe, L.; Boardman, P.; Teclaw, R.; Graves, C.; Lebaron, C. W. (2006). "Implications of a 2005 Measles Outbreak in Indiana for Sustained Elimination of Measles in the United States". New England Journal of Medicine. 355 (5): 447–455. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa060775. PMID 16885548.
^ Glanz, J. M.; McClure, D. L.; Magid, D. J.; Daley, M. F.; France, E. K.; Salmon, D. A.; Hambidge, S. J. (2009). "Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination is Associated with an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children". Pediatrics. 123 (6): 1446–1451. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150. PMID 19482753.
^ Williams, K.; Wray, J. A.; Wheeler, D. M. (2012). Williams, Katrina (ed.). "Intravenous secretin for autism spectrum disorders (ASD)". The Cochrane Library. 4: CD003495. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003495.pub3. PMID 22513913.
^ Brown, M. J.; Willis, T.; Omalu, B.; Leiker, R. (2006). "Deaths Resulting from Hypocalcemia After Administration of Edetate Disodium: 2003-2005" (Full free text). Pediatrics. 118 (2): e534. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0858. PMID 16882789.
^ Chiang, H. -M.; Lin, Y. -H. (2007). "Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: A review of literature" (Full free text). Autism. 11 (6): 547–56. doi:10.1177/1362361307083259. PMID 17947290.

Past discussions

For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Autism:

Splinter skills math (discussed at Talk:Asperger syndrome)

External links

Sciencebasedmedicine.org discussion of vaccines and autism.
Quackwatch misconceptions about vaccination.

Autism spectrum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 31, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
August 3, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
August 10, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 17, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
July 24, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
August 14, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Medicine: Genetics / Neurology High‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This redirect 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
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Autism spectrum is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Autism Top‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Top	This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Wikipedia CD selection

Template:WP1.0

Spoken Wikipedia

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Autism spectrum.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Marshall R. Childs (November 4, 2005). "Lessons from Asperger's syndrome". Daily Yomiuri.
Adriana Gamondes (June 24, 2010). "Part II: The Tipping Point: Questions about Autism, History, Race and Melanin". Age of Autism.
Banaji, Mahzarin R (December 2010). "Presidential Column: Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that Anybody Can Edit. But Have You?". Association for Psychological Science.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect.
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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 30 days

location of content about vaccines

Al-Andalus moved the vaccine content in the Causes section from the end of that section to the beginning, in this dif. I reverted, as this seems worthy of discussion. I also think that we should perhaps add a "Society and culture" section (per WP:MEDMOS) and put this content there, as this content is not about an actual cause of autism... thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diagnostic criteria

As far as I can tell, this change (resulting from edits by three different editors) is incorrect. Repetitive and restricted behaviors are part of the diagnosis, and required for it. Has that changed? It was my understanding that it is the severity issue that changed, not the requirement. Can is incorrect here: they are. I am not sure the wording is yet optimal, but we should hammer this out on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong. The criteria has changed, is much more broad (since Asperger's is now just Autism) and "can" is a more appropriate, less restrictive wording. Further, there is nothing wrong with changing up the reference to those with autism to be "individuals with autism" rather than "autistic individuals". Doing so will be more inclusive of those who prefer to be referred to first as people rather than by their diagnosis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issue or preference on "individuals with autism" v. "autistic individuals", but I will note (after years in here), that no matter what we use, someone claiming to be an advocate for people with autism will change it, and they don't all agree. No, what I am raising is the matter of what language we use when something is part of the diagnosis (which repetitive and restricted interests are, but under DSM5 it is severity that varies). We need to better wordsmith that part ... in fact, the intro to that whole section could use work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any issue with it, yet you changed the entire edit, rather than just the word "can" (which you say was your concern). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nitpick, I have other things to do. As I said, that particular wording has changed back and forth and back and forth and back and forth more times than I can remember, and it will change again. If you are interested, we can discuss the substance of the diagnosis. If not, I can go do something else. (In fact, I was a bit more troubled that three editors changed the article after someone introduced a typo, and didn't bother to check, so ... what else was in there?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking is something those of us who actually have autism do. Protesting when an editor blanket reverts an editor with whom they've had disagreements in the past is something Wikipedians do. My OP in this thread did discuss the substance of the diagnosis. Nonetheless, if you don't have time to put up with the "nitpicking" of an individual with ASD, perhaps you don't truly understand ASDs and shouldn't be editing the article? Just a thought. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted if you (or anyone here) would apply nitpicking, and anything else, to reviewing for errors introduced so I don't have to go back and do that (again, three editors overlooked an issue introduced,[1] so all things considered, I went back ... now, please discuss).

And since you are personalizing and making a distinction in this discussion between NTs and others, you might also recognize that not all NTs perseverate enough to divide other editors into those they have or haven't had previous disagreements with. Meaning, disagreements with you don't stand out in my memory, sorry. I was concerned about SNUGGUMS, though, since s/he does stand out in my memory, as s/he has been so helpful elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New content

This was added "In some cases individuals with autism can have catatonic-like detoriation in skills and sometimes they can have autistic catatonia, but it is a rare condition.^[1] Autistic catatonia differs from classic catatonia in a number of ways.^[2]"

I think it is undue weight for the lead. The first ref is a small primary source from 2000. The second is a blog. The symptoms is rare. The discussion should be in the body and with better refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Jhertel (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources good enough for inclusion?

http://www.molecularautism.com/content/2/1/15/abstract (facial features)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926922 (lungs)

They got removed, just want to confirm. Ylevental (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No these are two primary studies. We should be using review articles per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, where can I find good review articles? I don't want to keep making mistakes Ylevental (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good? http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/in-brief/2012/clinical-research-children-with-autism-have-abnormal-airways Ylevental (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would contain some [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any for my purpose. I don't know if I can ask you since you're really experienced, but maybe you could find them for me. Ylevental (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles for the links I gave you: http://www.molecularautism.com/content/2/1/15/abstract and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926922 Ylevental (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not how review articles work. Much prior primary research is not picked up by reviews as it is not sufficiently notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have little experience, but http://www.molecularautism.com/content/2/1/15/abstract is "Highly Accessed" and is in a journal with an impact factor of 5.49 Ylevental (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ylevental The two sources that you want to bring are "PRIMARY" sources as defined in MEDRS here. Per WP:MEDREV (and in indeed all content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY, and the other content guideline, WP:RS) all content should be based on SECONDARY sources. For articles about health, that means a literature review article published in the biomedical literature. here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources - is a page of links to find use-able sources for health-related content. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Doc James I have no idea how to find the appropriate articles. Hopefully you will put in the effort to find them and if you can't then I guess I must wait a few years. |Ylevental]] (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ylevental the best way to write Wikipedia articles is to find very high quality secondary sources. Than allow those sources to determine what you add to Wikipedia. It is not a very good idea to come up with the content you wish to add and than trying to find sources that support that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Classification This all relates to DSM-IV. DSM5 does not have the same 7 pervasive disorders... PDD-NOS, Aspergers, Autism are all now Autism. This section needs a major rewrite. Ga rr ie 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2008). "Outbreak of measles--San Diego, California, January-February 2008" (Full free text). MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 57 (8): 203–206. PMID 18305451.

[2] Parker, A. A.; Staggs, W.; Dayan, G. H.; Ortega-Sánchez, I. R.; Rota, P. A.; Lowe, L.; Boardman, P.; Teclaw, R.; Graves, C.; Lebaron, C. W. (2006). "Implications of a 2005 Measles Outbreak in Indiana for Sustained Elimination of Measles in the United States". New England Journal of Medicine. 355 (5): 447–455. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa060775. PMID 16885548.

[3] Glanz, J. M.; McClure, D. L.; Magid, D. J.; Daley, M. F.; France, E. K.; Salmon, D. A.; Hambidge, S. J. (2009). "Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination is Associated with an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children". Pediatrics. 123 (6): 1446–1451. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150. PMID 19482753.

[4] Williams, K.; Wray, J. A.; Wheeler, D. M. (2012). Williams, Katrina (ed.). "Intravenous secretin for autism spectrum disorders (ASD)". The Cochrane Library. 4: CD003495. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003495.pub3. PMID 22513913.

[5] Brown, M. J.; Willis, T.; Omalu, B.; Leiker, R. (2006). "Deaths Resulting from Hypocalcemia After Administration of Edetate Disodium: 2003-2005" (Full free text). Pediatrics. 118 (2): e534. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0858. PMID 16882789.

[6] Chiang, H. -M.; Lin, Y. -H. (2007). "Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: A review of literature" (Full free text). Autism. 11 (6): 547–56. doi:10.1177/1362361307083259. PMID 17947290.

[7] ttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/176/4/357.long#T1

[8] ttps://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2014/01/03/does-our-teen-have-autism-related-catatonia

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 :{{u|Jytdog}} {{u|Doc James}} I have no idea how to find the appropriate articles.  Hopefully you will put in the effort to find them and if you can't then I guess I must wait a few years.  |Ylevental]] ([[User talk:Ylevental|talk]]) 20:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 ::[[User:Ylevental]] the best way to write Wikipedia articles is to find very high quality secondary sources. Than allow those sources to determine what you add to Wikipedia. It is not a very good idea to come up with the content you wish to add and than trying to find sources that support that. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 02:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
+== Classification ==
+https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#Classification
+This all relates to DSM-IV. DSM5 does not have the same 7 pervasive disorders... PDD-NOS, Aspergers, Autism are all now Autism. This section needs a major rewrite.
+[[User:GarrieIrons|Ga]][[User_talk:GarrieIrons|rr]][[Special:Contributions/GarrieIrons|ie]] 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)