Talk:Neurocysticercosis

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Neurocysticercosis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 23, 2024. (Reviewed version).

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 Neurocysticercosis. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Epilepsy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EpilepsyWikipedia:WikiProject EpilepsyTemplate:WikiProject EpilepsyEpilepsy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Neurology Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as High-importance).

A fact from Neurocysticercosis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that neurocysticercosis has been referred to as the "great imitator" because it can mimic many other neurological disorders? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neurocysticercosis.

Lancet Neurology doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70094-8 JFW | T@lk 00:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was the disease in the first episode of House (TV series). II | (t - c) 15:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source citation link #4 is broken. Page no longer exists on host website. Ceasar XXI (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neurocysticercosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 23:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take thie one, expect initial remarks in 48-72 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I know medical pages can be confusing for some so if you have any questions let me know or ask WP:MED! IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, seeing that you are taking part in the GAN backlog drive(and easily leading too, great work, congrats!), would you like to review one of mine? I have a nom and co-nom(Peter Capaldi) at the moment in the target articles. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a couple of yours bookmarked to review! IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only the co-nom remains now, you can review that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well-written article, already passes half the criteria, and I have just skimmed it, IntentionallyDense. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that medical articles have their own MOS which can be found at WP:MEDMOS which should clear up some things for you. In regards to society and culture the issue is more to do with finding sources that pass WP:MEDRS and issues with due weight. IntentionallyDense (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking this btw, makes it easier to review knowing what MOS is being used, a comprehensive one at that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref-51: Are student newspapers reliable?
  • ?  Done
• Consider making Prevention, Treatment and Outlook a single heading, maybe "Prevention and Treatement", or just the first two, and outlook under symptoms?
  • Reiterated under those headings
• Also Causes and Mechanism
  • Will reiterate, see above

*Society and Culture- probably not expandable, bcs its a rare disease?

• Shouldn't History be the first heading?

Going section by section.

• parenchymal or extraparenchymal- explain the terms?

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• and this- TSOL18 vaccines

Removed the vaccine name since I think it is overly technical for the lead, let me know if you need further changes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... surgery, acetazolamide ...: rephrase, compounds running together with causes.

Sorry what do you mean by this? Neither of these are causes of the disease. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have clarified myself better. carbamazepine for seizures and surgery, and acetazolamide, steroids, or mannitol for intracranial hypertension. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you this helps a lot. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done does that look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it does. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Antiparasitic drugs should not be used: "are not" maybe? as not a guide

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessary, but para 3 reads like a wall of text, split into two?

I can't find the exact guideline but usually, leads are supposed to be under 4 paragraphs hence why I combined those two topics. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe shorten the paragraph then, does like look too much detail for the lead. For eg, Common antiparasitic medications ... against calcified cysts. and Prednisolone and dexamethasone ... mass inflammation risks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove the prognosis info from this paragraph? IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep it. Seems important enough for the lead. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll work on trimming tht section a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it a bit.  Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good, but I think medication names should be removed? overviews don't really need that much detail? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:MED, "Some sections will necessarily be absent or may be better merged"; also can it be expanded?

How would this be better merged? I don't think it could really be expanded much more unless I wan't to start going into the details of smaller studies done on prevention methods in endemic areas. If you feel like that would bring the article to GA status please let me know! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, does not need expansion then- I just expected a bigger disease to be more complex to prevent. I think the average person assumes that prevent and prognosis can be under a heading named "Prevention, Treatment and Outlook", or even "Prevention and Treatment"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be reasonable to combine prevention and treatment but the outlook seems a little too different of a topic to merge if you get what I mean. There is more details on like education methods but then it kinda becomes a how to manual on preventing the disease. unfortunately due to the nature of the disease (happens mostly in poorer areas) the prevention is mostly education which i could emphasize more if you think that would be helpful. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, outlook is close enough, of what the chances of survival are with/without treatment, but if you wanna keep it separated, that's fine too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I combined treatment and prevention but would prefer to keep outlook seperate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... good prognosis however ...: ... good prognosis, however ...

 Done

• Per MOS:MED, "Some sections will necessarily be absent or may be better merged"

Is there a reason why this could be better merged? I don't feel that it is really under the topic of any of the other sections. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• needs comma between countries and except

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• needs comma between US and however

 Done

• Can this be expanded?

Not really. I couldn't find specific figures for the estimated prevalence since it often goes undiagnosed but I'll see what I can do. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good

• All good, but do try to expand, if possible

• What information do you think is missing from this section? IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just added bcs it looks really short, and I see from a surface level search that apparently RFK Jr. got it? That must be notable enough?DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point thank you. I’ll look into expanding the sections you mentioned. As for the sections I don’t really think they need to be merged since they cover vastly different content. I’ll work on the other stuff you mentioned as well. Thanks! IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, expansion would be good too. Currently, it looks kinda weird with such short paragraphs in History and Outlook, and MOS:Layout has "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings.", so that's why I mentioned them. Causes and Mechanism are diff and big enough, so I'll strike that suggestion out later. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like the RFK Jr. case was never confirmed so I don't think it would be appropriate to add. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, but the section is society and culture, not "cases". You can mention that the disease was mentioned a lot, though whether he had it or not hasn't been confirmed. Also, sorry the review is taking time- reading an article about such a complex thing and suggesting changes takes time and I haven't had the time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good I'll see what I can find. And worries with the review taking time, I understand. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All fine

• coproparasitologic- what does this mean?

 Done Overly technical so I just removed it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• gross hyperdensity of bone structures on CT- or this?

Pretty much because of the calcium in bones, CT scans show bones really well which can result in them not picking up smaller abnormalities that are near the bone. I'm not sure how to phrase this better but I'll come back to this. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not yet done

• extramedullary subarachnoid- ?

extramedullary means outside of the spine and subarachnoid space is an anatomical term which I didn't wikilink in that area since it was wikilinked elsewhere in the diagnosis section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are classification and diagnosis supposed to be in bullet form as per WP:MEDMOS? I got confused reading the MOS. If yes, fine. If no- change to prose(and put some of the footnotes in-text)

I don't think MEDMOS has anything specifically about lists or bullet form. I used bullet form because it seems like the best way to display such information. The GA Migraine uses bullet points for the diagnosis section so it does seem to be acceptable. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, then

• must be characterized: has to be characterised (unless the former sounds okay to you)

 Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good

• Partial seizures with secondary generalization: meaning?

The partial seizures part is wikilinked but the secondary generalization part means that the seizure begins focally and ends with motor activity. I feel like that explanation may make it sound even more technical. Should I maybe just remove the secondary generalization part? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CSF pathways: what are these?

It's the way in which CSF flows throughout the body kinda? I'll wikilink CSF. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• paroxysmal: maybe a different word

paroxysmal headaches are a specific type of headache so I don't think I can really change the name. I've changed the link to the other name for the chronic version of them. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• vitritis: what is this?

Inflammation of the vitreous. We don't have a Wikipedia page for it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first- probably, second- yes, third- fine, fourth- link vitreous? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually, change vitritis to inflammation of vitreous membrane maybe? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done okay sounds good. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will check every 8th ref

• Ref-1: variety of clinical manifestations, ... differences in the number and location of the lesions ... to variations in the severity of disease activity
• Ref-9: Seizures ... inflammation ... gliosis and neuronal damage
• Ref-17: Human consumption of improperly cooked infected pork
• Ref-25: Initial reports used this assay ...test in serum for parenchymal neuro cysticercosis ... ELISA could be useful
• Ref-33: entirely preventable disease.
• Ref-41: antiparasitic drugs can also lead to worsening ... addressed before initiating antiparasitic therapy.
• Ref-49: Hipólito Unanue in 1792, ... soldier with taeniasis ... a generalized seizure

Will do the rest of the review later, IntentionallyDense. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed four more headings, just one more heading remains, though a large one. Barely any changes needed, well done, IntentionallyDense. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense, review completed. The article is well-written, so didn't see many changes that need to be done. Fix/explain the five remaining changes, and I'll write down a formal spot-check and pass it to GA. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense, passing the article to GA. Well done, it was very well-written, and your responses to the review were great. Enjoyed reading it and reviewing it. Congratulations, keep up the good work. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first GA! Thank you so much for your hard work and great review! IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I've had a read of the article, and I'm afraid that it needs a lot of work to be less technical. There are subsections which will not be understood by anyone who hasn't undergone medical training of some kind, such as #Focal deficits, #Diagnostic criteria, #Classification, and much of #Immunodiagnosis and #Neuroimaging. You have passages in the lead which I find totally incomprehensible:

• Parenchymal neurocysticercosis is neurocysticercosis lesions within brain parenchyma, while extraparenchymal neurocysticercosis is lesions in ventricles or subarachnoid spaces.
• Parenchymal and single lesion neurocysticercosis generally has a favourable prognosis, while extraparenchymal neurocysticercosis can lead to obstructive hydrocephalus, and sudden or slow death.

At the moment the article reads more like an in-depth guide in a medical textbook than an entry in a general encyclopedia; it would honestly be an ideal use-case scenario for the {{technical}} cleanup banner. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback I really appreciate it. I will work on making the article less technical! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I have tried to make the lead less technical [1]. Are these the kinds of things you are looking for? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made the lead more technical, not less. In general, if something in the lead needs to be glossed, it should not be in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Thank you that's helpful I'll move the explanations down to their respective sections. I'm thinking of just ommitting the classification from the lead (or at least the terms parenchymal and extraparenchymal) as I'm not sure that they can be simplified in a way that is understandable but the issue with that is that the terms are used elsewhere in the article before the classification section. Any advice with that?

Also in regards to the setence Parenchymal NCC and cases with only one lesion generally have a favourable prognosis, while extraparenchymal neurocysticercosis can lead to obstructive hydrocephalus (accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain), and death. is it the terms "parenchymal and extraparenchymal" that make it hard to understand? Would it be better to simply say something along the lines of The prognosis of NCC depends on the type and number of lesions; in severe cases it can lead to death to avoid technical terms altogether? Thanks you in advance for your time and feedback. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 13:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those terms are very confusing, but even "prognosis" is too high-level for the lead! You also have the medical use of "presents" in the fifth sentence—most people just won't understand it. You need to simplify. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 How is it looking now? I have tried to simplify it IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]