Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies

Commonality order in re of vascular dementia

Both this article and the article on Vascular dementia claim that their respective disease is the 2nd most common cause of dementia. What is the correct order?

Not exactly. This article claims that Dementia with Lewy bodies is the second most common cause of hospitalization for dementia. This could reflect a referral bias (e.g. that patients with Dementia with Lewy bodies experience more falls and are thus hospitalized earlier). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.195.0.205 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to depend on how one defines vascular dementia. "Available data suggest that DLB is more common than pure vascular dementia but not more common than any vascular contribution to dementia." Is dementia with Lewy bodies the second most common cause of dementia? J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 15:4 pp. 182–7 (2002) (PMID 12489913) --Sjsilverman (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I erase this part because the article was impropertly cited. According to http://www.nia.nih.gov/Alzheimers/Resources/Lists/vascular.htm , vascular dementia is the 2nd cause. Lechasseur (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WHole article may be needed to rewritten for the layperson

I came upon this page because Estelle Getty was diagnosed with this condition or disease or whatever. Let us say that the article is so full of jargons and medical words that I still have no idea what the hell this thing is.72.80.241.72 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Working on an Update

I got started updating the page but realized that the changes were sufficient to warrant working on them in my Sandbox and then moving the whole thing over en masse. I will try to make this understandable to the lay person and bring in lots more references. I like the last round of changes and will copy this latest version over to my sandbox as the basis for my rewrite. I welcome people to drop in to my sandbox and look at what I'm doing, comment, suggest changes, etc. cheers, Celia Kozlowski (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update Completed and Comments by Garrondo

I have completed my update and refurbishment and moved this from my sandbox. Following are comments moved from my talk page to here for further consideration by all who may be interested in this page:

---

lewy bodies I was the one to reorder the article. Your improvements seem ok, but I have some comments. Nevertheless I do not have time right now to follow closely the article. Treament and care should be merged. Maybe it would be a good idea to follow a similar structure to the treatment section in the Alzheimer's disease article. At the same time high quality refs should be found per WP:MEDMOS. youtube videos are NOT a quality ref (Additionally per WP:MOS no refs should be added in the titles).Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, Garrondo, I appreciate the simplicity of merging Treatment and Care, but envisaged two different things -- one being the medicine given by doctors and the other the day-to-day care given by carers (home or nursing home). Maybe they need different headers to distinguish the concepts better? I will look at the AD page for ideas on how to make this distinction.

Vis-a-vis the youtube videos, normally I would agree with you, that these are not peer-reviewed etc etc, but, having viewed all 180 minutes of the videos -- taped at a conference organized by the LBDA -- I actually find them to be the most comprehensive, up-to-date information out there. I can find other sources for most of the information, but I truly believe these videos are the best primary sources. The three speakers are expert physicians actually treating LBD. Given that this is an "emerging disease" and, as I've discovered from personal experience, understanding on the part of doctors (most of whom trained long before LBD was discovered) is quite limited, I think this is a very high quality, if not wikitypical reference. Cheers et thanks for all your hard wikiwork, Celia Kozlowski (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I have taken only a quick look at them and they seem plain language enough; and also of more quality than usual for youtube: I would not eliminate them; but I would rather add more secondary references (review articles) from peer-review journals as the medicine manual of style states. Regarding treatments: it is true they are usually provided by different people, but nevertheless they are both treatments. In the AD article we created 3 different subheaders which could be of use here: Pharmaceutical, psychosocial and caregiving. What do you think? --Garrondo (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, Garrondo, I looked at the AD file and started moving in that direction by re-heading the section "Caregiving." At this point the psychosocial information is still in the caregiving section, but I don't think there's really enough information to warrant breaking the paragraphs up any further. They are meaty -- short and information-packed -- but I think adequate for now. I will work to add more peer-reviewed references to replace some of the video references. cheers et thanks Celia Kozlowski (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

LBD or DLB

It doesn't matter to me which way it appears, only that part way through the article LBD becomes DLB. If there is inconsistency in the literature or disagreement among authorities, this might need to be included in the article. (I could clean up the lettering, but am not prepared to dive into the literature.)

I will say that the article, beyond the above point, seems pretty well written. GeeBee60 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes please, get this straight. It's alarming when the medical community splits into camps over petty things like acronyms to the extent that the main acronym changes repeatedly within its associated article. Blitterbug 21:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

The article now seems to use LBD consistently, except for its title. Should the article be renamed? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the current title seems more common in books, according to the Google N-gram viewer. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Age of onset

This article does not discuss age of onset thoroughly. Maybe typical age of onset of Lewy body disease can be discussed. H Padleckas (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for the list of notable sufferers

An editor removed some entries in the list of notable sufferers and added a tag requesting for an agreement to be established about who should be included in the list (see this edit). I notice that the list is not too lengthy, so I don't think there is really a big problem that is evident here. I suggest that the following guidelines should be sufficient:

1. The list should only include people that are sufficiently notable to be discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, either as the primary topic of an article or as a significant subtopic in another article.
2. Each entry should be supported by some cited reliable source(s). If some entry does not have a source citation but is linked to some other article on Wikipedia in which such a reliable source is cited, the appropriate action is to add the citation rather than remove the entry. Also, unless an entry looks really questionable, it may be desirable to place a {{citation needed}} tag on the entry to request an appropriate citation and let some time pass by rather than just removing the entry.

I noticed that Norman Winter appears to fail criterion #1, so I removed him from the list. I checked the articles about Bill Beutel and Maurice Shadbolt, and found that although there are articles about those people on Wikipedia, and those articles say these people had DLB, those claims are unsourced. So I added a {{citation needed}} tag to each of those articles (but I did not restore the list entries for those people here).

—BarrelProof (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Lewy bodies etiology matches that of brain parasitosis

Where abnormal protein accumulation marks the site of mobile parasite dwellings. The symptoms mentioned can besides be explained by schizophrenia. To be a nearly newly described disease, described by Japanese, verifiable only post mortem, and a celebrity disease, makes this characterization suspicious of being a misinterpretation and misdiagnosys.