Talk:Baby colic

Shaken Baby Syndrome
Just wondering if there has been any correlation with colic to incidences of shaken baby syndrome. It's a pretty terrible thing and I think most people should have enough common sense not to shake a baby (not to be confused with making a swinging motion) to soothe the child) but I also could see where a sleep deprived person with temper problems or self control issues might do something like that; even though it is certainly not an excuse to do it, I wonder if durress (spelling?) might also be a problem caused by colic (which could result in shaken baby syndrome) and should therefore be mentioned here. What do you think?


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.151 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cite a source and add the information if there's a reliable source for it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken link fix
Hey, there was a broken link to Pediatric Research article. I found the article (took a bit of work, the reference wasn't very helpful), but there isn't a clear url to link to. Maybe this works?:

http://www.pedresearch.org/pt/re/pedresearch/abstract.00006450-200101000-00015.htm

Anyway, it seems like proper references would be better, they are more stable. So I put one in for this article. Trouble is, it makes a bit of a mess for the footnoting. But I can't fix this now. So sorry, but there you go. Peace and Love. Pigkeeper 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See Template:Cite web. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Abdominal pain
Um, the disambig page at Colic specifically says that Baby colic is "caused by severe abdominal pain," which this article doesn't mention. Also, our article on Lead says something about lead being a "poisonous metal that ... can cause nephropathy, and colic-like abdominal pains". This article merely states that an "otherwise healthy baby cries incessantly without any apparent reason". I mean, I know we can't actually ask a baby if it is experiencing abdominal pains, but surely there is some reason why these other articles seem to think that it has something to do with abdominal pain. Just wondering. func (talk) 03:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation page no longer mentions abdominal pain. - Anarchofascist


 * And the article does now mention abdominal pain. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "colic" a misnomer if a connection with the colon, or the abdomen at all, is dubious?

Allergies - unreferenced
I removed the following text because it is has no medical references, but appears to be giving medical advice and making scientific claims. -- Beland 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Colic can be caused by allergies in the mother and/or baby. If breastfeeding, the mother's diet can be restricted: some mothers omit dairy, egg, soy, and processed foods (including spices and caffeine) from their diet, drink only water and increase their intake of other foods and supplements for missing nutrients such as calcium.  This will not necessarily "cure" colic, which seems to cure itself after a period of time, but it may reduce the symptoms.

Isn't it ridiculous to even suggest that whether you have dairy in your diet affects the amount of dairy in your breast milk??? ... For those of you who put that he article, and thus probably weren't breast fed enough yourselves, milk is dairy. And regarding the acid reflux theory, apparently leaving the baby on its back makes it worse, while putting them on their stomach basically kills them... so has no-one thought to prop the baby's upper-half up on a pillow? I have acid reflux and that always helps me sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dairy in the above text, refers to cow's milk products, which contain both lactose, (milk sugar) and milk proteins, such as casein, which many people cannot digest because they do not have the enzymes to digest these molecules. Calves do. This does not affect all people, but certainly should not be ruled out in cases of colic, because these types of allergies can trigger various immune responses, including an increase in histamine. (Actually, human foremilk is very high in lactose and is often tolerated well by babies. The hindmilk is full of milk proteins too, albeit perhaps not the same ones as found in bovine milk.)

Putting a young baby on a pillow unsupervised is very dangerous and is absolutely made clear to parents that it is a potential cause of suffocating or cot death. If the pillow was to end up over the baby, it does not have the coordination or strength to move it. A newborn baby's neck, also cannot support it's head, so lying on their back is safest. It cannot move it's head if it's face ended up flat down.( F.E.G.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.186.222 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Old wives' tale?
More than 10 years ago, I read an article that suggested that the entire concept of "baby colic" is utter nonsense according to modern medicine. The article suggested that doctors, on the aggregate, now consider "colic" to be a folkloric term* for any of a great number of conditions which can cause infant discomfort and lead to extended crying, and that continuing to think of a baby as "colicky" instead of suffering from a specific and identifiable and treatable problem is in fact quite dangerous. I find it a little disturbing that a decade later this WP article neither takes the same position, nor, alternatively, cites a reliable source against this view and in favor of "baby colic" as a legitimate medical diagnosis.


 * Cf. "the vapors", "leeching", "humours", "bad air" and various other discredited medical ideas from the Victorian age and earlier.

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I blame you for not entering the relevant information into the article with a citation. 70.112.162.19 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) forgot to log in: Orthografer (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a marketing page for Happiest Baby Class
In the Treatment section, there is reference to some questionable success future parents may have when attending a Happiest Baby course. The citation just links to a study on happiestbaby.com. Regardless of who wrote the actual study, happiestbaby.com can't cite itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.26.119 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, this article consists of the arguments and opinions (not scientific facts) contained in Harvey Karp's book, "The Happiest Baby on the Block," which results in this article acting as an advertisement for his books and videos. 71.239.173.28 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)tb 11/03/10

Unencyclopedic Language
"Tooting"? "Pooping"? What cutesy site for mothers was this text cut'n'pasted from? 218.191.194.125 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I also found the abbreviation "BM" rather twee. Does this mean bowel movement? It's all rather cryptic! Ian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with concerns regarding tone. I would make the changes myself but I'm too lazy. I hope someone else takes on a general edit.

I also suspect (but can't provide citations offhand) that the entire article should be prefaced by a qualification to the effect that colic is a out-of-date concept which conflates any number of unrelated causes for infant discomfort, and is only really of historical interest. --Hughstimson (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tone
"...your baby..." and "All of us...." Please change this section to use neutral, encyclopedic tone, not the tone of literature directed to calm parents, useful as that may be in another context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.43.24 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Effect on family
There's a section about the effect on the family. One section mentions at-risk parents, in such a way that it seems to suggest that only babies whose parents are drug addicts or teenagers get Colic. It just seems a way off what you would expect from a quality encyclopaedia, and a little insensitive. Suggested re-wording:

(groups of parents particularly at risk) include teens, drug addicts, military families, foster parents, parents of premies and parents of multiples. Families living in dense housing projects, such as apartment blocks, may also suffer strained relationships with neighbors and landlords if their babies cry loudly for extended periods of time each day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.146 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

infacol link
The sentence "A medicine often suggested for use is infacol." links to the manufacturers website, this seems somewhat non-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smason79 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to sign and say that it comes from 80.1.152.128 at 18:44, 21 July 2012‎. This resolves to somewhere in south london about 15 miles away from manufacturers listed address. Smason79 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Association Between Childhood Migraine and History of Infantile Colic
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1679399 "Conclusion and Relevance The presence of migraine in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years was associated with a history of infantile colic. Additional longitudinal studies are required."

This should be included in "Causes" indicating a correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.82.212 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I refute a secondary source with a primary source?
Medref You seem to delete primary sources, just because those primary sources argue with authorities that I do not recognize. The wind haz been taken from beneath your wings, because the template which told you to delete primary sources haz been watered down. Poorly sourced material does not necessarily include primary research. Primary research is not original research. Ohio State University recently published an industry-funded and industry-promoted review saying that breastmilk may be equal to formula. I do not trust it. One double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study on cow's milk passing through breastfeeding mothers to CAUSE baby colic trumps ANY and ALL secondary sources that claim dietary changes are not necessary. I will leave that remark IN for now. If you delete my primary source refuting this ignorance, then YOU WILL PROMPT AN EDIT WAR. [mailto:brewjay@spamcop.net] 108.181.137.147 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because consensus is against this. Secondary sources are more reliable than primary ones. We do not generally allow primary sources for medical content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Consensus is against what? How do you know that secondary sources are more reliable than primary ones? Show me an example of where a reviewer correctly ignores a primary source. "We means you and me. Who are we. Speak for yourself." Policy explicitly allows primary sources to be used for anything. 108.181.137.147 (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My 2¢ is that I think you both raise valid points. Yes, we should try to devoid our sources from clear conflicts of interest, but at the same time we need to use reviews where possible. Like sometimes there are no other reliable sources than primary sources and hence we're left having to use them and in those cases, well I think it's alright but where secondary sources exist we should use them. The reason why is that secondary sources require review by experts in their respective field in order for them to fit the definition. I think what James means by "consensus" is that WP:MEDRS says: Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources.
 * Fuse809 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a great example of why we do not typically allow primary sources. It does not take into account all the available research. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's better that primary sources be juxtaposed with the material that they contradict. The other choice is to put contradiction where it won't be obvious. There are already contradictions in this document.75.152.124.107 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WIKIPEDIA ALLOWS PRIMARY RESEARCH! The review I am debunking excludes a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, which is the gold standard in experimental design. Exclude it at the expense of your credibility. Exclude several such studies to make people suspect that you are industry-funded. The only criterion for inclusion is verifiability. Primary research is easier to verify, because you can read their method in the abstract. Conversely, by the time a review iz condensed to an abstract, you do not hav rationale for excluded studies, nor do you hav rationale for weights. Don't get me wrong. Some reviews hav good abstracts. One iz here: . In this case, I do not see a shred of systematic method to prove that diet does not cause colic. I find it hard to believe that a doctor would be so willing to prefer opinionated gloss over gold standard design. [mailto:brewjay@spamcop.net Bohgosity BumaskiL]


 * Re "The only criterion for inclusion is verifiability." -- Nope.   05:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are off topic
75.152.124.107 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC) You have been reverted by three editors now. Persisting may result in being blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not if you are trying to slowly blank the page. You cut it down to a quarter of its size with skeptical reviews. 75.152.124.107 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Restored this content
"Dietary changes by infants are generally not needed." As ref says "The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Nutrition does not recommend changing to soy formula in the management of colic" and "Feeding changes usually are not advised." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What wording do you think would be better. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This article needs attention
This article needs attention. Colic is NOT crying for three hours aday! Crying is what a baby does when it feels discomfort or pain. In this case it feels pain, and the pain is caused by the colic. And three hours, times three days times .... that's a rule of thumb NOT a definition! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you try reading the sources or do you have high quality sources that say different? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think any amount of sources is going to help if what we want to defend that colic is "episodes of crying for more than three hours a day for more than three days a week for three weeks". Surely YOU OF ALL PEOPLE would know that that is wrong. Crying is the manifestation, not the condition. If you look up migraine, it does not say it is an "episode of whimpering, irritability, nausea, sometimes accompanied by vomiting". Those are manifestations and symptoms, they are not the condition itself. I trust you can see the difference between cause, symptoms, outword manifestations and behavioural changes. As for the 3 by 3 by 3, that's the kind of stuff you say in popular magazines and tv shows and parenting websites. You will also find in those sources lots of stuff on "the common flu" and "seasonal flu", yet as a medically trained person you woud know that that is just a convenient way to handle the terminology. Wessel made up that magic one-sze-fits-all 3x3x3 formula in the 50s. If in 60 years we have nothing better to offer, then it is really a sad endictment of the progress of science. But it does not have to be - there a are plenty of proper good sources out there. So, which one would we rather emulate - a popular magazine or a Lancet?


 * So, the least we can do is say what we know and that is that medical science still does not know what colic is or what causes it. I am sure that we can agree on that. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be best if suggestions to improve the article include sources (WP:MEDRS) that would be used to support changes, rather than pontificate on the subject itself. Yobol (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Yobol. I am not pontificating. Yes, I could add sources, but I would have thought people who write about medicine would know these sources by hard, just like I know what a good source is in areas of my expertise. What would be the point of me searching for such sources and then be told that these are known fringe sources, or known for a speficic type of opinion or position? I did find quite a few sources with defintions of colic, some pointing to a definition by a certain Ronald Barr, who appears to know what he is talking about. I see now that Barr is cited three times in the artcle, which confirms my assessment that he is a good source, which means that sources are there, it is merely a question of reading the article and fixing what is wrong with it. I could easily go and fetch Barr's definition and put it right on top and rephrase 3x3x3 to indicate its value as a an indication, a symptom, but like I said, there are people better qualified to do that. I don't write where I am not qualified to except for obvious corrections to do with language, typos etc. DocJames wouold be able to confirm, I have twice before asked for his opinion on medical articles. Yes, I agree that the section title was a bit harsh and have now changed it. Best regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed sentence lacks relevance as currently phrased
This information seems fine but is irrelevant. It stood alone as an individual one-sentence paragraph before I removed it and placed it here. It doesn't imply anything about babies with colic as it stands. I'm placing it here instead of deleting it because it seems it's possibly well-cited and perhaps is relevant to the topics of babies with colic and if rephrased that relevance would become apparent. Perhaps some day someone will check the citation and see if it contains relevant info and include it in the article. I don't have the time to do so, so one step at a time for now.

Here's the removed sentence:

Most babies have mild acid reflux, often referred to as "spitting up."

makeswell (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree off topic and removed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"potentially serious side effects, including death"
Yes, death has the potential to be rather serious...this needs to be re-phrased. 2.31.36.39 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Text
User:Djkoutdoors Per this "Colic results from organic disease in less than 10% of babies "

Specifically diagnosis involves ruling out organic causes so it does not really make sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And it would be "fewer" in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why the ref says "The colicky crying pattern results from organic disease in <10%." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Facts About Colic
Talk to any number of pediatricians and pediatric gastroenterologists and they will tell you that acid and spitting up needs to be part of any colic discussion. It's why most prescribe PPIs and H2 antagonists with success (albeit without enough consideration for the adverse events). If you DocJames and others want to keep this excluded from this article that is fine but please know that you are not doing any service to those folks who get to their pediatrician and then are offered acid lowering therapy. Given that you are much better at policing this article than I could ever be, i will leave you to do the research and add to this article as you see fit. Djkoutdoors (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at this.
 * We have two reviews, one from 2006 and one from 2016
 * Why use the 2006 one instead of the 2016 one?
 * We do not need to talk to peds gastroenterologists when we can read their most recent published statements which says "Despite widespread use of treatments for gastroesophageal reflux to reduce infant crying, there is no evidence that GERD causes infants to cry, or and there is evidence that treatments for reflux are ineffective in reducing crying"
 * Will add this so that the peds docs who do not realize this can read Wikipedia and hopefully change their practice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * again it's not about the use of PPIs - I don't advocate that.
 * its about people understanding why the doc would recommend the PPI
 * if its not there already you should add that PPIs don't work - I'm all for that
 * but you can't delete the concept behind why they think it might work
 * this helps people better understand what is going onDjkoutdoors (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will add that reflux is not related to baby colic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So no interest in giving context for why someone might be offered a PPI by their pediatrician? I give up. . . you have worn me down. You are clearly the dictator of this article. Well, at least I can say that I did try to volunteer for Wiki but friction and entropy win out. Congratulations DocJames. Take Care Djkoutdoors (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Djkoutdoors we base article on recent high quality sources. And we work to reflect those sources. Could we add a discussion regarding why PPIs are given inappropriately for colic? Sure I guess, you have sources? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Affected percentage
Lead says "affects 10–40% of children", epidemiology section says "5–25% of children". Either a clarification or consistency needed. Brandmeistertalk  20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated. Ref in lead was newer than in body. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Useful reliable? source?
Is this a useful reliable source? https://cdn.journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2016/05000/Infant_Colic_What_works___A_Systematic_Review_of.3.aspx?exportImagesToPpt=true&fbclid=IwAR2gOWLCAW7ejKB7cVe4vB45H5yfQGafBe9HRvBtsjZs1ILo9LE_mAcbGTw It shows that probiotics and fennel are useful.

I assume that this article is not acceptable: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229918309452?fbclid=IwAR0Rmxgxvz4qLtABJ52Uf16oEuhK6qDHYbIKktggGfK6Pdsfv7H1LIHOUzQ KFvdL (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup first source is good. Second one is not sufficient for WP. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pity, as the last source is spectacular in its results.... KFvdL (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Colic
When baby's get colic 2601:8C0:C81:E40F:B802:CEC:638E:81F4 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)