|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 Febrile seizure.
|WikiProject Medicine / Translation||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
I reverted this article all the way back to the version by Waellll111 at 04:40, 21 September 2010. The edit by Jamhour-njitwill at 18:55, 23 November 2010 somehow messed up most of the formatting for references, and the problem was never corrected after that. Also, I don't think that the information added in that revision is entirely appropriate for this article—it's a little bit off-topic, and seems to be more of a "how-to" than encyclopedic content. While I'm sure Jamhour-njitwill's intention was to be helpful, I don't think these problems can be easily corrected at this point without reverting the article. It also doesn't appear that much, if any, information has been added since then, so a revert seems appropriate. —Guido del Confuso (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
OMIM, Inherited Neuronal Ion Channelopathies: New Windows on Complex Neurological Diseases <-- discussion of sodium channel mutations that have been associated with febrile seizures. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"Simple febrile seizures do not cause permanent brain injury; do not tend to recur frequently (children tend to outgrow them); and do not make the development of adult epilepsy significantly more likely (about 3–5%), compared with the general public (1%)."
It's not significantly more because of the way statistics work, especially in medicine. 2-4% more is not that much, considering the variables involved - geographic area, underlying illness, type of seizure (simple vs complex), other associated neurological problems, type of study, patient compliance, and so on. For example, a lot of parents won't report all seizures once they're assured that febrile seizures are benign in general. Besides, few studies have followed enough people from childhood until adulthood to prove the correlation between febrile seizures and epilepsy. This is quite difficult, as people might change residence, might go see other doctors for later epilepsy evaluation, and so on. Thus, that increase of 3-5% is quite questionable as it is. It would be relevant if it was more than 10%, but that's just my opinion... after I've read dozens of studies on this matter. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
recent studies have shown that gastroenteritis is in fact not normally associated with febrile seizures, as in only a very small percent (around 5-7%) of patients presented with FS with underlying GE. I'd rather remove GE or rephrase "normally precipitated by a recent upper respiratory tract infection or gastroenteritis" - there are other causes, upper respiratory tract infections being at around 74%. For example, otitis media is also 7% but I don't see it here. I won't modify myself right now, but when I finish studying this subject I will do so and add my sources too. Meanwhile, this article needs revision badly. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
also - I've found quite a lot of studies that revealed that febrile seizures are more frequent between 3 months and 5 years (not 6m-6y), the limits being 1 month and 6 years (though rarely after the age of 5 years, and when they are present it's usually in their complex, not simple form, associated with other neurological affections). I'm not going to modify this just yet, as there are as many opinions as there are authors, and I've not yet finished my own study. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmh649 's vendetta against the non-profit's http://febrileseizures.org.uk/ contributions to the page it now exists with multiple factual inaccuracies. Suggest someone overrules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmh649 and undoes his changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- As you have been told several times by DocJames (user Jmh649) and others on your own Talk page, on DocJames' Talk page and now here on the article's Talk page, Wikipedia has fairly rigorous sourcing requirements which must be met. Primary studies are frowned upon, reviews of several studies are secondary sources, which are much preferred. Certain other types of sources, such as good, recent textbooks, are acceptable for certain types of claims; you've been referred to the pertinent policies and guidelines.
- But you keep insisting on using a source with no authority. There are many not-for-profit patient advocacy organisations with excellent information on their websites. Those sites, themselves, are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. The people who maintain those websites can be ideal editors for Wikipedia, as they usually keep up with the scientific literature and thus can cite good sources correctly. If there are "multiple factual inaccuracies" in this article, I hope someone in your organisation will correct them, citing good sources!
- BTW, please sign your own comments by clicking on the pencil icon at the top of the edit box. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually this user has added inaccuracies to Wikipedia with a ref to their website such as in this edit  "Fever prevention is the logical and best treatment." Not only that but their website contains advertising to some none evidence based alt med. 
- We have a 2012 Cochrane review that refutes this IPs website  "No clinically important benefits for children with febrile seizures were found for intermittent oral diazepam, phenytoin, phenobarbitone, intermittent rectal diazepam, valproate, pyridoxine, intermittent phenobarbitone or intermittent ibuprofen, nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, acetominophen or placebo. Adverse effects were reported in up to 30% of children." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
We have 'slept on it' for a week now and our strong objections to Doc James edits still stand. He is cherry picking articles to support his agenda leaving the page factually inaccurate in multiple places. Personally, we pity your patients for the misguided advise you will give them and more broadly for the misinformation this page now presents. And before you ask us again to fix the page we have better things to do than to case-by-case refute your pages inaccuracies. Alas wikipedia has shown itself to yet again be a cabal of the ill-informed. In summary, for the record, our organisation categorically refutes the information on this page.
- We have 'slept on it' for a week now and our strong objections to Doc James edits still stand. He is cherry picking articles to support his agenda leaving the page factually inaccurate in multiple places. Personally, we pity your patients for the misguided advise you will give them and more broadly for the misinformation this page now presents. And before you ask us again to fix the page we have better things to do than to case-by-case refute your pages inaccuracies. Alas wikipedia has shown itself to yet again be a cabal of the ill-informed. In summary, for the record, our organisation categorically refutes the information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Our statement here
http://febrileseizures.org.uk/forums/topic/wikipedias-factual-inaccuracies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)