From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Withdrawing Antihypertensive Drugs and Cognition[edit]

I am thinking of adding this new Cochrane Review to the article, under the "Management- Medications" section.

There is presently no references that I can see re hypertensive meds and cognition in this wikipedia article. Authors conclusions, quoted from the review: "The effects of withdrawing antihypertensive medications on cognition or prevention of dementia are uncertain. There was a signal of a positive effect in one study looking at withdrawal after acute stroke but these results are unlikely to be generalisable to non-stroke settings and were not a primary outcome of the study. Withdrawing antihypertensive drugs was associated with increased blood pressure. It is unlikely to increase mortality at three to four months' follow-up, although there was a signal from one large study looking at withdrawal after stroke that withdrawal was associated an increase in cardiovascular events." [1]

Suggested addition: Evidence linking anti-hypertensive medication to cognition and dementia is not clear, and there is a possibility that people may experience an increase in cardiovascular-related events if this medication is withdrawn.<ref name=jongstra2016 /ref> JenOttawa (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How about "It is unclear if there is a link between blood pressure medication and dementia. There is a possibility that people may experience an increase in cardiovascular-related events if these medications are withdrawn." Two sentences rather than one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I added it in JenOttawa (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the second sentence is required, James. It is almost self-evident that withdrawal of antihypertensive treatment would lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I am happy either way. Feel free to remove. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the second sentence that James added. That being said, being a new editor, I am still learning about how information is shared on wikipedia, and with what goal. I have no experience with redundancy in wikipedia. I feel that highlighting the information about cardiovascular events may help some readers who do not have a medical background, and it is info obtained from the systematic review. Ultimately, I am fine leaving it in or taking it out! I greatly appreciate all the feedback and interesting discussions. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Omega-3 fatty acids for treatment of dementia[edit]

Presently, there does not appear to be any info about Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in the article. April 2016 Cochrane Review, authors conclusions: "We found no convincing evidence for the efficacy of omega-3 PUFA supplements in the treatment of mild to moderate AD. This result was consistent for all outcomes relevant for people with dementia. Adverse effects of omega-3 PUFAs seemed to be low, but based on the evidence synthesised in this review, we cannot make a final statement on tolerability. The effects on other populations remain unclear." and "Altogether, the quality of the evidence was moderate or high for most of the effects that we measured, but we found no evidence for either benefit or harm from omega-3 PUFA supplements in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. The effects on people with other types of dementia remain

Suggested sentence: Omega-3 fatty acid supplements from plants or fish sources do not appear to benefit or harm people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. It is unclear if taking omega-3 fatty acid supplements can improve other types of dementia.(Burkhart, 2016)

If added, would this go under Alternative Medicine or Medicine? Thanks very much. JenOttawa (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

problem adding a comment[edit]

I am having a problem adding my comment above, it seems to be a software glitch if I add too much data at once. It is presently in my "sandbox", if anyone is curious, otherwise I will finish this post once I figure out the problem. Thanks!!JenOttawa (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I took out the full reference (for now) and it seems to be ok now. Thanks.JenOttawa (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[edit]

I am planning to add a 2016 Cochrane review to the section on structured questionnaires for cognitive testing. The review found that there is not sufficient evidence to determine how effective the IQCODE (Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline in the Elderly) is for early dementia prediction.

The article already says: "Probably the best known questionnaire of this sort is the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE).[54] "

I was thinking of adding this sentence: There is not sufficient evidence to determine how clinically accurate the IQCODE is for diagnosing or predicting dementia.( Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. How about "There is not sufficient evidence to determine how accurate the IQCODE is for diagnosing or predicting dementia." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)