Talk:Obsessive–compulsive spectrum

Reference for autism spectrum & others

The claim that autism spectrum disorders are linked to OCD spectrum sounds a bit outlandish and absurd. Unless references can be added to this article soon, I would suggest removing autism spectrum and any other tenuous links until references are found. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I have moved the conditions without references to this page; see #Unreferenced conditions. Whatever404 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced conditions

The following conditions were listed in the Conditions section. Until they are referenced, they should remain here.

• Muscle dysmorphia
• Autism spectrum disorders, including autism, Asperger syndrome and PDD-NOS
• Compulsive buying disorder and kleptomania
• Depersonalization disorder
• Sydenham's chorea
• Torticollis
• Self injurious behaviour, including dermatillomania

-- Whatever404 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title

This article was recently renamed from Obsessive–Compulsive Spectrum Disorder to Obsessive-compulsive spectrum proposal with the comment "Proposal, not a recognized disorder". It's true that this is not a recognized disorder. However, the phrase "Obsessive-compulsive spectrum proposal" appears nowhere in the literature, and represents a WP:NPOV problem, since it emphasizes Wikipedia editorial opinion that this is just a proposal. Let's rename the article to "Obsessive–compulsive spectrum" instead. The lack of capitalization will reflect the fact that it's not an official disorder. Changing the name in this way would make this article more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, e.g., Autism spectrum, Bipolar spectrum.

By the way, as per Wikipedia standards the character between "obsessive" and "compulsive" should be an endash (–), not a hyphen (-). See MOS:ENDASH. Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Following up my own comment. I see that the unrecognized name was already controversial, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Naming conventions ?. As there seems to be reasonable consensus that the new name is not good, I've followed up on the above proposal. Eubulides (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In looking into this more, I see that the literature prefers the name obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder for this concept, i.e., with the trailing "disorder". I don't think I can rename the article to an existing redirect on such short notice, though: doesn't that require admin bits? Perhaps an admin can look into this, as the situation is complicated enough without my making it worse by trying a rename again. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Obsessive–compulsive spectrum is a good choice for the title, because there is no one "obsessive compulsive spectrum disorder". Also, Obsessive–compulsive spectrum echoes Autism spectrum and Bipolar spectrum, which seems appropriate. (Newcomers, there is a related discussion WT:MED.) Whatever404 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the more correct name, based on reliable sources, is obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

PubMed results

There seem to be three questions here:

1. What terms are used in the literature?
2. What do those terms mean?
3. What should the article title be?

To answer question #1, I dug up all but one of the following articles (one was already present). For question #2 - Let's look. (Italicized links indicate that there is no abstract freely available.)

The following seven articles each refer to an existing disorder (pica, body dysmorphic disorder, etc) as an "obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder", presumably meaning that each disorder is one of many disorders on an obsessive-compulsive spectrum.

• Is Pica an eating disorder or an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder? (no abstract)
• Morbidity risk for obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders in first-degree relatives of patients with eating disorders. – "the obsessive-compulsive spectrum of disorders"
• Pathological gambling and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. – "this study provides preliminary support for a Spectrum Disorder Model"
• Is olfactory reference syndrome an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder?: two cases and a discussion. – "an OCD spectrum disorder"
• Body dysmorphic disorder as an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder
• Body dysmorphic disorder: an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder, a form of affective spectrum disorder, or both?
• Trichotillomania. An obsessive compulsive spectrum disorder?

At least one of the three articles in this exchange uses the term obsessive-compulsive disorder spectrum in the abstract (the other abstracts are not visible). This usage adds the word "disorder" but uses it as an additional descriptor for the spectrum. See the initial article's abstract.

• Negative outcome after neurosurgery for refractory obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder.
• Response to Yaryura-Tobias et al (2000) negative outcome after neurosurgery for refractory obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder, World J Biol Psychiatry 1: 197-203. (no abstract)
• Response to Dr. S. Curran and Dr. K. Matthew's Letter to the editor (World J Biol Psychiatry 2001, 2: 107) concerning Yaryura-Tobias et al (2000) negative outcome after neurosurgery for refractory obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder, World J Biol Psychiatry 1: 197-203. (no abstract)

This article uses the term obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder in the title but makes no reference in the abstract.

• The paraphilias, obsessive compulsive spectrum disorder, and the treatment of sexually deviant behaviour.

This article uses a variety of terms in the abstract, including obsessive compulsive spectrum disorder, "a family of disorders known as obsessive compulsive (or OCD) spectrum disorder", "OCD spectrum disorders", and "the OCD spectrum disorder family"

• Obsessive compulsive spectrum disorder.

So, question #3: what is the best title for this article? The overall sense that I get from these sources is that they all refer to a classification scheme where existing disorders are grouped on a spectrum. Nearly all of the sources refer to the spectrum itself, whether explicitly, or by referring to a specific disorder as one of many disorders on the spectrum.

Consider that if we were to title the article Obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder, how would it read? Would the article begin: "An obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder is a disorder that has been identified by one or more rearchers as existing on an obsessive-compulsive spectrum."? From there we would describe the spectrum itself. Why, then, would we title the article with a term which means "any one of many disorders which exist on a spectrum", when the spectrum is the topic?

Whether to refer to the spectrum as the obsessive compulsive spectrum or the obsessive-compulsive disorder spectrum is another question. If we were to use the term Obsessive-compulsive disorder spectrum, we run into the problem of describing such disorders as "OCD spectrum disorders", i.e., as "obsessive-compulsive disorder spectrum disorders". Similarly, if the Bipolar spectrum article were called Bipolar disorder spectrum, such disorders would then be referred to as "bipolar disorder spectrum disorders". Clearly, this is sub-optimal.

For these reasons, I consider Obsessive–compulsive spectrum to be the most appropriate title. Whatever404 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Google Scholar results below. Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar results

The sources mentioned in the previous comment all use the term "obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder" or "obsessive–compulsive disorder spectrum", so they are evidence that "disorder" should be in the title of this article. Google Scholar indicates that "obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder" (697 hits, 301 recent hits) is considerably more popular than "obsessive–compulsive disorder spectrum" (151 hits, 55 recent hits). I also checked Google Scholar for all recent articles with "obsessive–compulsive spectrum" in their title, and I checked these titles all by hand, with the following results:

• XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX "obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorders" (or "disorder")
• XXXXX XXXXX X "obsessive–compulsive spectrum"
• X "obsessive–compulsive spectrum of disorders"
• X "obsessive–compulsive spectrum condition"
• X "obsessive–compulsive spectrum phenomena"
• X "obsessive–compulsive severity spectrum"

So it does appear that the most commonly used phrase, by far, is "obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder". The arguments about awkward wording in the lead are unpersuasive: we don't retitle articles on the off chance that this would make lead sentences slightly easier to write. Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One other point. The phrase "obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder" is so common that the acronym OCSD is commonly used for it. I count 146 articles in Google Scholar doing that. In contrast, the acronym OCS does not seem to be used in that way. Typically stands for "obsessive–compulsive symptoms". Occasionally it has other meanings (e.g., "obsessive–compulsive syndrome") and I saw only one article where it was used to mean "obsessive–compulsive spectrum". Eubulides (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With this title, how do you think the lede should read? Whatever404 (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be worded in lots of ways. One simple possibility is:

"An obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder is a condition similar to obsessive–compulsive disorder in behavior and causation." (citing Ravindran et al. 2009, PMID 19497165)

Eubulides (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a start. As the existing lede paragraph is only three sentences long: I would like to know what you had in mind for the rest of it.

Here is the entirety of the article as it is currently written.

The obsessive–compulsive spectrum is a model of medical classification where various psychiatric, neurological and/or medical conditions are described as existing on a spectrum of conditions related to obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). The model suggests that many conditions overlap with OCD in symptomatic profile, demographics, family history, neurobiology, comorbidity, clinical course and response to various pharmacotherapies. Conditions described as being on the spectrum are sometimes referred to as obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders.

Conditions

The following conditions have been described by various researchers as existing on the spectrum.

(list of conditions)

Would you please show me what this would look like after the proposed move? Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Endash, not hyphen

Perhaps unwisely I let the above matter drop, and recently the article was renamed so that its title had a hyphen rather than an endash. The usual Wikipedia style is to have the article title be the same as the name within the article, unless there is some special character that would prohibit that (which there is not in this case). But getting back to the main point, from the above discussion it appears that the title should have "disorder" appended to the name. I'll wait for further comment before doing that. (The new name should have an endash in it, not a hyphen...) Eubulides (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the article name would have been changed after; I simply forgot.

Regardless, who's going to type an en dash to find this page, or any other? I'd been trying to link to this page, and I kept getting a red link. At the very least, redirect the version with a hyphen to this page, as per WP:ENDASH. Also, keep the discussion here, not on my talk, please. MichaelExe (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• "redirect the version with a hyphen to this page, as per WP:ENDASH" That was already done.
• I see now that you're going through both this article and Obsessive–compulsive disorder changing endashes back to hyphens in titles of sources, I guess under the theory the sources are using hyphens. In some cases your edits even reproduce obvious typos in the article title, such as a space after the hyphen. This approach does not match common practice in Wikipedia. It's standard practice to use a common style in citations for article titles, even if the articles themselves use different orthography. For example, even if the articles' title is "Impulsivity in Pathological Gambling" in the original source, the Wikipedia citation is to "Impulsivity in pathological gambling". And even if the original source uses a serif font, it's common for the Wikipedia citation to use a sans serif font. Changing some endashes to hyphens (including any errors associated with the hyphens) introduces distracting irregularity to the Wikipedia references section, which is a disservice to the reader. Please change it back.

Eubulides (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, using different titles than the one's used in the sources is more of a nuisance than a favour (if you're looking for a book source, for example). And I assume the example you're referring to ("Impulsivity in Pathological Gambling") is based on PubMed sources which always (as far I've seen) only capitalize proper nouns and the first letter of the title. Titles of books are a bit inconsistent (looking at the OCD page, most of them maintain the exact titles; others do not capitalize like the books do). Also, when you say "some cases", please refer to which exactly to back your arguments and accusations. Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style does not uncapitalize or change the titles of sources in its examples (i.e. "Resolving Family Differences Peacefully", "The Karma of Kanga", "The History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers", etc.). What you describe as common practice is actually your own preference. Unless you can produce a guideline or policy supporting your "common practice", we'll have to wait for a consensus before proceeding. Tbh, you shouldn't change the titles of books (and we usually don't), so we shouldn't change any titles. I don't see why you're arguing over this; did I offend you by reverting your edit? MichaelExe (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes to font, capitalization, and dash style in these citations do not make it harder to find the sources. Yes, PubMed capitalizes article titles differently from sources do, and it also renders dashes differently from sources; this is perfectly OK and our articles are in good company in doing something similar. This is not simply a matter of my personal style: it's very common in Wikipedia to use PubMed or Vancouver-style capitalization/punctuation rather than the capitalization/punctuation of the original. An example of an endash-to-hyphen change outside an article title was 'The phrase "obsessive–compulsive" has become' in Obsessive–compulsive disorder's lead. You didn't offend me, no: I am just trying to keep things simple and clean as simple as possible for readers and editors, in the presence of the Wikipedia style guide's obvious preference for endashes in this situation. Eubulides (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with endashes; searches don't distinguish. Wiki conventions should be used in Wiki articles. This is a long-standing convention; can we avoid a long discussion over something which has long enjoyed consensus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Four whole sections without any source

The four sections body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, tic disorders, and trichotillomania don't have any source. They were all added by the same editor, but I find them different in verbal quality - some are much better phrased than others. As I discovered a bit of copypasting by the same editor, I wonder where the sections come from. I did google searches but couldn't find evidence of any more copypasting. Anyway, all sections need sources! Lova Falk talk 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing mentions of Trichotillomania to Bfrbs in general

Keeping section for trich, but adding a section for bfrbs in general as well as one for dermatillomania, as only mentioning trich seems wrong. if you have any suggestions, or would rather there only be a section for bfrbs instead of additional ones for trich and derma please give some feedback! (i dont wanna delete the section for trich just in case) ¿V0id? {have a great day!} (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)