Talk:Calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystal deposition disease

I
I agree that it should merge. I'm no rheumatolgist, but I know chondrocalcinosis is a type of CPPD. Andrewr47 01:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support merge. --Arcadian 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

^Chondrocalcinosis is actually an X-ray finding in several disease including CPPD, hemochromatosis and hyperparathyroidism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.32.133 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

questionable citation
This sentence:
 * All cultural races are affected by CPDD, and in the United States around 50% of the population over 85 years of age are affected.

is cited to an article that mentions neither of these two facts. On the first, I'm not even sure what a "cultural race" is; the second is well defined but happens not to be mentioned in the article. Is this intending to refer to something else? --Delirium (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article name
Does anyone know why the article is titled Chondrocalcinosis when the name should be Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease? GeneralBelly (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To the commenter suggesting "Chondrocalcinosis" is not a suitable title, I would argue: The patient's diagnosis (mine) given by the Orthopedist, was "Chondrocalcinosis." That was the term entered into the search engine when researching the diagnosis. Had the article been titled: "Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease" I would probably not have found the info I was searching for. The article seemed to me, as a lay person, to be very well written and easy to understand. 24.163.44.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

"Chondrocalcinosis" is a X-ray finding in several diseases including pseudogout (CPPD), hemochromatosis, and hyperparathyroidism, among others --> I support a name change for this article.

✅ Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as "Technical"
Random bits and pieces need better non-technical explanation, throughout the article. One such example, in Section 1: "Another locus has been described at 8q.[7]". Achromatic (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * doesn't seem very technical to me. Yes, it uses technical words but it is not at all hard to understand.

Lack of citations
The sentences:

Patients are exhausted of the classification name of "pseudogout" because it alters the course of the doctor/patient conversation and treatment.

and

''The disease may be common in people over 60, yet the research is scant. Instead, it has been categorized as gout. Gout, although a terribly painful disease that attacks the toes has a cure. CPPD, formerly referred to a pseudogout, is not gout. The pain radiates throughout the entire skeleton with no treatment or cure. Clinicians possibly dismiss the pain and disability severity because of lack of reference, qualify it as "just gout", fear of the unknown or DEA retribution. Many have disregarded the pain as a mental condition and recommend psychiatric treatment, which has been proven as false and an injustice to the patient. Interviewed patients had no other comormodies, in good physical condition, and led active lifestyles. Many stated their CPPD has been the worst pain ever experienced and their lives had changed for the worse.''

are note cited.

The former section (patients are exhausted...) seems at risk of being an over-generalisation and I feel should be removed unless it can be cited with a source showing this to represent a reasonable majority of a representative sample of patients.

The latter section (the disease may be common...) seems quite speculative, in that it includes phrases like 'possibly'. Parts seem untrue, e.g. that CPPD has no treatment. The latter part, I assume, refers to a specific piece of primary research, in that it references interviewed patients. Significant improvement needed overall to this section, otherwise I think it should be removed.

92.238.18.191 (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite being an inclusionist, I agree with you. Even if it was cited properly, the section does not sound encyclopedic at all. LittleWhole (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)