Talk:Behçet's disease

Treatment section does not reflect the actual practice
There's too much emphasis on the anti TNF drugs, which are now only experimental and only used as a last resort in severe refractory uveitis. They have yet not proven effective for any other manifestation of Behcet's. Current treatment approach in Behcet's now has a basic paradigm as to whether the disease is organ/life threatening or not. For life threatening or organ threatening disease, high dose corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine or azathioprine are used. Refractory uveitis is treated with interferon or infliximab if necessary. Otherwise colchicine, low dose corticostreroids in short courses or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are used for skin and mucosa diseasea or arthritis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekoraytascilar (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is
Is Morbus Behçet Latin for 'Behçet's disease' ? -- PFHLai 03:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing with a Latin name. A pubmed search for the term only brings up German language articles. Zyryab 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Adamantiades-Behçet's disease
I reverted a complicated cut & paste move done by on 10 April. No discussion took place, and the edit histories were messed up. I'm aware the disease presently favours the Turkish protagonist (compare Crohn's disease), but unless strong Google evidence can be provided that the compound name is more popular I'd be strongly opposed to using this as per WP:NC. JFW | T@lk  02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted it again for the same reasons. Also all of the resources linked to in the infobox refer to it as Behçet's disease or syndrome and none as Adamantiades-Behçet's disease. --WS 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys they even changed the name of the associations in external links to fit to that. I have reverted it What a joke. The same redirect also has been done in German. Any German speaking Wikian please correct this. MKS 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Under Causes
I found that under causes it states that Behcets disease is not hereditary. That, however is not true at all. How would the disease be passed on? It is genetic and is prevalent amoung those in the mediteranean. More than likely the disease is provoked by another strong illness. Actually, I am not trying to prove a point by saying this, I just realize that saying it is absolutly not hereditary is not true.

Imput on this would be helpful. Thanks

---Stephen


 * Behcet disease is associated with HLA-B51. For more details see the OMIM entry. --WS 11:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing ankylosing spondylitis
I don't understand why there is a discussion of the cause of ankylosing spondylitis on the page, as it is 1) not 'fact' but debatable and 2) has nothing to do with Behçet Disease. If no-one objects I will remove this part.

I was wondering the same thing, it wanders off at a tangent and is largely incomprehensible anyway. Would support removal. Brianpie (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While I don't know much about ankylosing spondylitis, I was very surprised to see the claim that it "is" caused by cross-reaction against a particular infection. Checking the wikipedia entry on AS, it's pretty plain that this is just a hypothesis - most diseases have seen dozens of hypotheses come and go. -Eric J. Johnson

I also Agree.. This ankylosing spondylitis discussion has no proven basis, and there's no evidence that the same applies for Behcet's. -Koray Tascilar

I removed the anklosing spondylitis. The individual who posted this drowned both the HLA-B and HLA-B27 page with this stuff. I have inserted information about HLA-B51 that links (after 2-years as a red-link) to a page I created HLA-B51, (snorting). Also I put a pretty little picture on the page of a B51 molecule. I should note this page has alot of problems with unreferenced information. I cut a whole swath of the AS stuff out.

As far as the proven basis is concerned, I use the word, associated, B51 alleles are linked closely to other genes and these other genes that evolved after the linkage was formed could cause disease, associated means one is close to and may be at the locus/allele that causes increased incidence.PB666 yap 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Neuro Behcet's"
There's no separate article on this in Wikipedia, though I see all kinds of googles for it....is it the same disease, but with the lesions etc. on the nerves only. My sister's son has it and his behaviour is now getting out of control; the extended care programs in our public medical services plan sent him home from long-term care and it's impacted her life severely, as well as of course his. I realize this isn't the place for expert opinion, I'll take it to the Reference Desk; but just wondering about the absence of an article on the disease, or if maybe this article shouldn't have a section on it (if it's related).Skookum1 (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is exactly the same disease. Some people use the term Neuro Behcet's (or similar) to refer to patients who have significant neurological symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.184.82 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree - Neuro-Behcet's is a distinct classification of Behcet's, but is not in fact the "same" disease. I have tested negative for N-BD through MRI's of my brain and lumbar punctures, but am a patient with Behcet's. (If it was the same disease, I could not be both negative and positive.) This is actually related to the first edit I wanted to do on the article - the part in the intro paragraph which claims that Behcet's is a fatal disease. Clarification should be given that Neuro-Behcet's is typically the condition with associated morbidity (although it can rarely occur otherwise.)
 * Just some feedback from someone who has personally dealt with Behcet's every day for years. Thanks.
 * Graced105 (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Graced105


 * Many diseases have different manifestations (including severity) in different people, or at different times in the same person. Wikipedia is no place for description of personal experience.  Enhancement of the article's coverage of neurological manifestations sounds like a good idea.  -- Scray (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Direct URL presentation
Since users to edit seem restricted, I just would like to point out that direct presentation of URL occasionally results in abnormal display on the Firefox browser. For instance, URL in "Triolo et. al. (2002)." It may be included in brackets or, in this case, embedding PMID seems appropriate.

--Tossh_eng (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect reference on neuro-Behcet's
The article claims that neuro-Behcet's disease was first described in 1991. But look at this reference from PubMed:

Neuro-Behçet's disease: report of three cases with a review of the literature. Su SL, Way LJ, Lin RT, Peng MJ, Wu SC. Gaoxiong Yi Xue Ke Xue Za Zhi. 1990 Mar;6(3):155-62. Review.

129.78.64.102 (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Behcet's Disease of the Optic Nerve
The article Behcet's Disease of the Optic Nerve was recently created, and seems like a merger candidate. Rd232 talk 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that (a year and a half late) and tagged it for a merge into this article.  B.Rossow ·  talk  05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * support merge as proposed. -- Scray (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * support merger. Lurkmolsner (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Under "Diagnosis"
It would make sense to me that within the "Diagnosis" section - after the criteria for determining BD - there would be a subsection entitled "Differential Diagnosis" where there would be info pertaining to the many diseases that are clinically similar to manifestations of Behcet's. Graced105 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Graced105

Ambiguous conjunctions
Some of the ands and ors in this article are a bit ambiguous due to lack of commas, so it would be great if someone who knows something about this disease could clarify them. 97.115.133.7 (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagnosis seen in a House episode
season 8 episode 14. love is blind. Avkrules (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Synonym?
Oculo-oral-genital syndrome redirects here, but the term is not described as a synonym in the article. I found this source which states that "This oculo-urogenital syndrome now bears his name: 'Behçet's disease'." I'm not sure this is a true synonym, so I leave this here on the talk page for someone else hopefully with better knowledge of this topic to clarify. Lesion ( talk ) 13:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit of 18 dec 2013
This appears to be a good faith edit by an IP, however overall since it is the lead we should need a source for this content please. Thank you. Lesion ( talk ) 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Neuro-Behçet's disease
This article describes a particular type or variation of Behçet's disease, not a distinct condition that merits its own article.  B.Rossow ·  talk  20:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with that analysis. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Absoultely not.They are distinct illness' and this proposal may confuse medical officials in diagnosis as there is different types of neuro.These are two kinds of headaches – primary and secondary. In the secondary type, the headache is adjudged to be due solely to a process of disease within the brain. Headache often accompanies the neurological complications that may occur in Behçet’s disease, of which there are three main types: inflammation within the brain (meningoencephalitis), inflammation of the lining of the brain (meningitis) and a disturbance of blood drainage from the brain leading to an increased pressure in the brain (intracranial venous sinus thrombosis)u
 * This merge and proposal may cause particular problems for both neuro and non behcets patients. 90.215.106.230 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe too many medical professionals are relying on Wikipedia to provide diagnoses, and those who are shouldn't be trusted to diagnose the common cold, let alone a complicated disease like Behçet's. Even the link you posted as a reference at the end of your comment doesn't mention "Neuro-Behçet's disease" by name but instead discusses headaches related to BD. In fact, on the entire BSS site, the only mention of Neuro-Behçet's is in the title of three journal articles (among dozens) on the Clinical Papers page. Mayo Clinic doesn't distinguish it as separate from BD; indeed, their studies only refer to it to describe a particular manifestation of BD symptoms (for example, here, where the subjects are clearly referred to as BD patients). I don't see any problem, either real or potential, arising from such a merge. Splitting this off will only cause confusion and water down any effort to provide and maintain accurate BD info for lay people, the primary audience of Wikipedia.  B.Rossow ·  talk  22:23, 20 January 2014 (TC)


 * Oppose one is a subpage of the other. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

unhelpful illustrations
While colourful, I do not think the illustrations of a normal ocular fundus and a normal pupillary light reflex contribute in a meaningful way to this article. Bart (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes these 2 images seem to show the normal appearance rather than signs associated with Behcet's. Lesion  ( talk ) 15:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Visual quip.
The inflamed eye image in the article makes the article very difficult to read. Regardless of whether such a situation is common or rare, I think that for the sake of readability, it should be left out of the article. --Agamemnus (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pls explain, how does the image make the article less readable? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, it's disturbing to view, even on the periphery. I am sure I am not the only one. I'd like to be able to read articles without having to see such images. --Agamemnus (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Check this mini-essay out. It's another way to describe my thoughts on the subject: Disturbing_or_upsetting_content. --Agamemnus (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This section may provide some guidance as to the way forward Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles. I'll post this on WTMED to get some more opinions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes diseases can be bad. There is a way to turn off images on Wikipedia. I disagree with removing images just because some people find them disturbing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with James. I also want to add a reader comes to this article to be informed or a certain subject matter and we can only describe something so much. Pictures such as the one in question allow us to illustrate certain subject matter better than we otherwise would. Peter.C  •  talk  •  contribs  16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well that the image should stay. The disease can have disturbing consequences. I understand the image can be a bit jarring to some, but the facts are the facts and it's important that people know what Behcet's disease entails. Many people find images of diseased eyes to be repulsive, but does that mean we shouldn't show representative images of important diseases of the eye? In my view, such images are still warranted., is there perhaps a way to warn readers at the top of the article that certain images within the article may be disturbing to readers? Something akin to a disclaimer/warning so readers sensitive to this kind of thing can at least brace themselves or choose to risk it anyway? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I recall there was an RFC proposing to add collapsible sections for disturbing images in medical articles. The result was against. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly what I had in mind, but I do remember seeing some kind of discussion like that in the past as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A google search shows disturbing images without warnings. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and google is a search engine. I don't feel strongly about a warning or not since the eye stuff doesn't bother me ;) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to read about it instead of having nightmares. I guess you could say that I have a pretty ability for certain recollection, so that makes these things not so easily forgettable. Not everyone who looks up the article is a med student or in some way needs to see these images. So that is basically the difference: nightmares... Besides, there is Wikimedia Commons and google search, as you suggested. For me, such images hurt more than help. But, let's assume that these images are helpful. I notice that many editors like inserting the most shocking images in Wikipedia despite that they may not be representative. So then the question becomes is the image representative of the most common forms of the disease, and considering that people would most likely be treated for it? Before you answer that, as a contrast, consider whether (easily treatable) diseases on Wikipedia would warrant or do already have images of extremely diseased body parts. --Agamemnus (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We could easily swap the order of the two eye images in that section. That would make it slightly less dominant (if you were distracted by it, then you could read more of the ocular section while keeping it 'below the scroll') with zero loss of encyclopedic content.  I'll go do that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That does help a small amount.. kind of leads in to it now... thanks...--Agamemnus (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I cover up images on some articles.. It reminds me of Frank Furedi's 2016 book What's Happened To The University, describing trigger warnings thusly: "Upon studying Robert Lowell's poem 'For the Union of the Dead', we were warned that the poem contained a racial slur and that we could leave the room before it was read out or cover it up on the page." Jimw338 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"Spontaneous remission over time is common for individuals with Behçet’s syndrome."
This is what the ref says here. There is no 2018 version? So reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:CuriousOliver did you read this bit? Do you feel it says something different? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

89.241.198.105 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)== Pronunciation ==

Could someone add an authoritatively-sourced indication of how it's pronounced? Presumably the cedilla makes the "C" soft so it's "Bersays" or "Baysays"? Till I noticed the cedilla I'd thought perhaps "Behcheys"? Hmm. Pam D  23:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Although I can't give any written links (hence putting here), I can tell you that having the disease I can state that Professor Kevin Davies, who diagnosed me and is one of the leading experts here in the UK, plus the Dr at The Royal Sussex County Hospital who reviews my condition and a consultant at the Sussex Eye Hospital who reviews my eye condition all state that it is pronounced as if it were spelt "Betchet's". That is to say the 1st syllable is as in the word "bet" and the second as in "ratchet". I have also asked 2 Turkish people who have confirmed this.89.241.198.105 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding ‘Fatigue’ as a symptom
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30299243/ and other references HillsideAuspex (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I zoomed into the Behçets UK conference “ Medicine and Me:Living with Behçet’s” back in April. Directors of all 3 UK Behçets Centres of Excellence attended and fatigue was high on the agenda as one of the most life-affecting aspects of Behçets. Over the past 5 years I have filled in several research questionnaires on fatigue while attending Behçets clinics as a patient. It would be good if the Wikipedia page could reflect the outcomes of this research. I have not edited Wikipedia before so please be gentle with me! HillsideAuspex (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The lupus page has a paragraph ‘Systemic’ under symptoms, where fatigue is included. On the rheumatoid arthritis page it is included under ‘constitutional symptoms’. HillsideAuspex (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On the NHS UK website it says: General symptoms

It's also common for people with Behçet's disease to experience more general symptoms as a result of the condition, including periods of extreme physical or mental tiredness (fatigue). This can affect a person's ability to perform any sort of activity. HillsideAuspex (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.)&#32;Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)