Talk:Bipolar disorder in children

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jx130, UAslam-Mir, Aecutuli, A. Choi, Future Pharmacist from UCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsteph98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

General
This page was quite deteriorated, with boatloads of off-topic content (that belongs in other articles), and a good deal of it based on primary sources. Will editors working here please become familiar with WP:MSH, WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, MOS:LINK, and work to understand that Wikipedia uses links to avoid duplicating information across articles; assessment tools can be described in detail in their own articles. This article should discuss childhood bipolar, which it is not currently doing, and most of the sourcing here is very dated. Writing is unencyclopedic. Secondary reviews can be found by searching PubMed; see the links at the top of this page for recent, freely available secondary reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out those resources! I am in the process of reading on those guidelines. In the meantime, I will work on reworking the language used in the article, and citing meta-analyses and systematic reviews instead of primary articles. Ongmianli (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches might help you understand sourcing of medical content, and a read of WP:OR might also be helpful. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Epidemiology
is a primary study; please review WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. I have removed this addition; not only is it not a secondary review, but it is more than five years old, meaning if relevant, the numbers will have been mentioned in a secondary review by now. Please also review WP:CITEVAR and observe the citation style used in the article (use PMIDs please, and see author format). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And it was reinstated, so I've flagged the primary source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, these edits contradict a 2014 review, which is a freely available and recent secondary review that complies with WP:MEDRS:
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:SandyGeorgia. I am reading through the Dispatch that you suggested; it is very helpful as I try to understand the nuances of ranking sources. Many of the criteria and heuristics are different than I am used to, and it seems that WP:MEDRS is different than what I'd read in general materials about editing on Wikipedia. The Dispatch looks more like what I am familiar with, so that is reassuring, I guess. With regard to this particular edit, I was trying to cite one of the studies with higher prevalence rates to indicate the range, rather than just having the article report the mean without a sense of the variability. The NCS-A is considered "high quality" because it was funded by the NIMH, was conducted by an experienced group, used a nationally representative sample, and was published in a high impact journal. Its citation impact (mentioned in the dispatch) also backs up the substantial weight it carries in the research community.

The secondary source that you referred to is in a much lower tier journal, has not accumulated anywhere near the same citation impact, and leans heavily on two prior reviews (fortunately representing the consensus in the field reasonably well). What I am realizing, though, is that it being freely accessible is a big consideration (cue all the lively debated about pros and cons of open access publishing). I am going to really digest the Dispatch, and then I would like to write back with a set of questions about how to understand current thinking in the Wikipedia community about the types of evidence, and how to mesh them with social science conventions and evidence based medicine conventions. I really want to figure out how to work together effectively, and how to teach other academics to engage more effectively with Wikipedia. I am grateful for your patience and willingness to help. This is quite a different community than I am used to, and I am realizing that I have violated etiquette several times without realizing it. My clumsiness with the coding is not going to win style points for a while, either. So, here's another helping of gratitude, in advance, for your patience. :-)

It will take me several days to get back to this; I am teaching and have a wave of deadlines this week. Any quiet on my end is just being busy, or thinking. Much appreciation! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 03:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talk • contribs)


 * Hi again, ! I don't at all mind cleaning up formatting, coding, manual of style or any other technical issue for an editor who uses the talk page, responds to queries, and is willing to learn Wikipedia style, guidelines and policies!  (On the other hand, it's less enjoyable to clean up after students who never engage talk, don't care about learning the ropes, and are gone as soon as I've invested hours of time into trying to teach them to use the website :)  Generally, though, if you are struggling to understand Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for medical content, you can get faster and more varied/detailed response at the talk page of the guideline (in this case, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).  Once you've worked through the Dispatch, and if you still have questions, then you might post a query there to get feedback beyond mine-- this isn't a very well watched article, so I may be the only medical editor watchlisting here.  Your arguments about why you want to use that particular primary source to show the range aren't in line with MEDRS, and I can explain why, but for now, will give you more time to catch up (well, actually, I'm begging off for now because I have a very busy morning :)  I know it can be hard for an expert in the field to avoid using primary sources, but I can see why secondary reviews have chosen not to report the higher range, considering the controversy about overdiagnosis.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.235.56 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 4 proposed edits

 * Citation needed in second paragraph of intro
 * Medical citation needed in third paragraph of intro
 * Elaborate the prognosis section
 * What are common treatments
 * Improve epidemiology section
 * Maybe move epidemiology part from history section back to epidemiology

7-28-2020 Jx130 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this is a highly contentious diagnosis, I suggest leaving epidemiological history in history. Please be sure to use only the most recent secondary reviews, per WP:MEDRS, since the diagnosis is so controversial. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating the Fundamentals of Epidemiology
— Assignment last updated by Pmejia136 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiProject Medicine Winter 2024 UCF COM
— Assignment last updated by Szali123 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Work Plan

Lead paragraph - confirm information in second paragraph - see if can be made more concise

Diagnosis - Signs and symptoms – would like to include the DSM5 criteria in bulleted format and specifically highlight differences between adult and children - Controversy – expand/correct controversy section – potentially add a section or add about the overlap and distinguishing factors of ADHD and bipolar disorder in children

Treatment - confirm treatment, update if needed - break into section for medication and therapy

Prognosis - confirm statistics

Epidemiology - confirm statistics

History - edit as needed

Add risk factor to cover genetic predisposition and other factors Add any relevant society and culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szali123 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Suman,
 * I enjoyed reading your article and think you did a great job with your edits and following your original workplan!
 * 1.      Introduction: I liked that you specified the different types of PBD and how it compares to bipolar disorder in adults. The first paragraph is clear and easy to read. I don’t see any grammatical errors. As a suggestion, I think the information in the second paragraph discussing how PBD is often misdiagnosed as ADHD would instead fit well at the beginning of the diagnosis section.
 * 2.      Diagnosis: I did notice one grammatical error in the 4th sentence of the first paragraph where “from” should be added: “Therefore it is helpful to obtain information [from] multiple sources such as family members and teachers and use questionnaires and checklists for a more accurate diagnosis.
 * 3.      Signs and Symptoms: I know your original workplan stated that you wanted to add bullet points regarding the DSM-5 criteria, however, I do think it looks great as you have it right now in paragraph format.
 * 4.      Controversy: I think this section looks great. You did follow through with your original workplan regarding the overlap and distinguishing factors between PBD and ADHD.
 * 5.      Treatment: This section is excellent! I think you did a fantastic job discussing different medications as well as the potential side effects associated with them. I also liked how you discussed ongoing and newer research regarding psychotherapy.
 * 6.      Prognosis: I liked that you mentioned the increased risk of suicide and substance use in individuals with PBD. Are there any percentages/statistics available that you were able to find for the actual rate of suicide/substance use in PBD vs individuals without PBD?
 * 7.      Epidemiology section and history section both look appropriate. For the comorbidities section, would change the third sentence in second paragraph from “Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluated onset of symptoms…” to: ‘therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate onset of symptoms…”
 * Overall, I think the article flows very well and is easily understandable to the general reader. You have great references and although a couple of things were different from your workplan, I do think that your changes make sense. Jsilliman (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)