Talk:Peyronie's disease

Medicine: Dermatology Start‑class Low‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Spurious information?

While hilarious, references to the 'saggometer' and to 'Hansons Grappler' seem to have been inserted for entertainment purposes. Isn't this article supposed to provide accurate information about a medical condition? there is no citation nor can I find any evidence that such devices exist. I really doubt their value here! As for the 'backhand method' of masturbation, perhaps it warrants a separate Wikipedia entry or at least a cross-reference. I'd like to try it out as it's a method I haven't used yet :) (Tez123 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Stop allowing removal of facts

The device section is continuously edited wrongly, and a user keeps adding terrible information "The underlying cause of Peyronie's disease is thought to be trauma or injury to the penis usually through sexual activity (i.e. masturbation, penis pumps, jilking exercises)." - that statement couldn't be any more incorrect. Stop allowing junk edits. December 16th update: Anna Frodesiac, stop removing traction device mentions. The editing of this article is absolute bollocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmad (talk • contribs) 18:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change Allowed

Ohnoitsjamie has allowed the "Traction Treatment" edit.

A

A resized image exists as Peyronie_penis.jpg.jpg, should someone find a need for it. I used to use it in the actual article, but someone gave some good points to why it should be hidden behind a link. If you disagree, I'm impartial, so do as you will. Is there any policy on nudity? --cprompt

I requested permission to use the image, but forgot to post it. The image was posted before permission was received, (and before I was very familiar with how Wikipedia works). Now, we're in the clear. :-)

Subject: Re: Request to use image from your site
From: Rod Phillips
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: cprompt

no problem, go ahead.
--- cprompt <cprompt@----.org> wrote:

>Dear Sir (presumably!),
>
>I really liked your webpage, The-Penis.com! I found it very
>informative 
>and useful. I would love to use a photo on that webpage for a project
>
>I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.
>
>Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) is a free encyclopedia that
>is 
>collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.
>
>I would very much like to incorporate the photo of a curved penis
>listed 
>on your Peyronie Disease page
>(http://www.the-penis.com/peyronies.html) 
>into a section of the project, but I can only do so if you are
>willing 
>to grant us permission to use it under terms of the GNU Free 
>Documentation License. This means that anybody will have the right to
>
>share the section with their friends, and modify it, for example, to 
>keep up with new information or to make it appropriate for a
>different 
>audience. You can read this license in full at:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL
>
>This license also expressly protects authors "from being considered 
>responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that 
>authors get credit for their work.
>
>If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting 
>article's references section by stating that the article was based on
>
>your work and is used with permission. The article "Peyronie disease"
>on 
>the Wikipedia already contains a link to your website. The article is
>
>located at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyronie_disease. The image
>is 
>already wrongfully included with the article. If you do not grant us 
>permission to use the image, it will be removed immediately.
>
>Thank you for your time.
>
>Kindly,
>
>cprompt
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

The references on this article are inadequate, but I leave the information here because I do not know how to add it to the Article. I hope someone will kindly do this. Because of inadequate references in this Article, it took me much longer to research this topic.

Levine, Laurence A., M.D. Peyronie’s Disease: A Guide to Clinical Management (Humana Pr., 2006).

Levine, Laurence A., M.D. Understanding Peyronie’s Disease: A Treatment Guide for Curvature of the Penis. (Addicus. Sept. 2007). http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6477479.html

Association of Peyronie's Disease Advocates http://www.peyroniesassociation.org rumjal 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead

The definition ought to contain a visual or apparent description of the disease. This should precede the statement regarding percentage of sufferers. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks like set-up ad for the product shown in the page

This article reads like junk and then follows up with a website that gives you a '100% cure'.Ykral (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fastsize Penile extender

Why was the reference to this device removed? It's cited to a decent source:

Levine LA, Newell MM (2008). "FastSize Medical Extender for the treatment of Peyronie's disease". Expert review of medical devices. 5 (3): 305–10. doi:10.1586/17434440.5.3.305. PMID 18452379. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Commercial or not, it's a reliable, peer-reviewed academic journal. II | (t - c) 08:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was a little hasty. Please excuse me. I visited the site and just saw BUY NOW! I didn't realize it was a credible study. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the study seems credible, and I originally added the reference after finding it on PubMed, it appears that there is an IP editor 64.58.188.68 (talk · contribs) adding it for commercial promotion. II | (t - c) 19:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the source seems credible, the report summary does not. In fact, this somewhat conflicts with the summary from the same person....

conflicting information

Furthermore, the report itself is not accessible - just the summary, which really doesn't say anything. Unlike other summaries, the FastSize summary does not give mention number of participants, and uses the term 'affordable'.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that it uses the word 'affordable' is questionable, but the fact that it doesn't state its sample size is fishy. The report is not inaccessible per se, but I don't have access to that journal. Someone at WP:MED probably does. But you're probably right that it's worth leaving it out until it's better established. II | (t - c) 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reprint of the report (supposedly). I wrote Dr. Taylor at

Frederick_Taylor@rush.edu (from the NCBI article synopsis page, searching Dr. database in Chicago could turn up other possible contact info) to ask about the validity of this reprint and if the study has been misrepresented. 71.86.156.73 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xternal link to blog not allowed?

I thought the blog link would also be helpfull, it is a serious blog from someone who suffers from the disease. Are blogs not allowed!? P.S. permission was also granted from the blog owner --Evilericc (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See point 11 of links normally to be avoided at WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leriche technique was neglected

Added a sentence and the NIH republication and archive copy. Done anonymously for it's an embarrassing condition. 71.86.156.73 (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]