Talk:Cryolipolysis

Cryolipolysis trademark
Please note that "Cryolipolysis" is a trademark term owned by Zeltiq/Allergan, and is not a general term for the category. Please see US Patent & Trademark office for details. I note that there has previous discussion around this topic previously. 87.74.62.48 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
Are there any longer-term studies of the effectiveness of this treatment? There should be something now that it's been used for more than a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.244.255 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2012‎

A Portmanteau of "Cryogenic" & "Lipolysis"?
I have added a citation needed tag to the claim that "Cryolipolysis" is a portmanteau of "Cryogenic" & "Lipolysis"more info-www.advancehealthcare.in

I suspect that the term is not a portmanteau of these words, and instead assume it's more likely that the term has been formed from adding the prefix "cryo-" to "lipolysis".

Furthermore I feel that an English speaking medical professional is likely to be familiar with the prefix "cryo-" and it's meaning, would reasonably assume "cryolipolysis" as being formed "cryo-" and "lipolysis" and from only the term itself correctly deduce that it pertains to the freezing or near freezing temperatures and the breakdown of lipids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This source may help. It seems to suggest it is the combination of three words: "(Cryo-cold, lipo-fat, lysis-breakdown)" CorporateM (Talk) 12:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Non RS promotional source removed
The following source does not qualify as RS and is promotional in nature, so I have placed it here.
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Likewise
 * - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it the ELs need to be considered. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name?
When this article was first created in 2009, Cryolipolysis was just going through human trials and it did not exist in any significant way as a business (Zeltiq) or as a consumer product (Coolsculpting). I'd like to improve the article following COI best practices (I have a COI) and was interested in any feedback on the best way to name and structure Wikipedia's content about the medical term (Cryolipolysis), the consumer term (CoolSculpting) and the business (Zeltiq).

For example, should we
 * 1) Create a Coolsculpting article with a Zeltiq sub-section and a Summary Style for the Cryolipolysis page or
 * 2) Rename this article to the term understood by the public, CoolSculpting, and include content about all three subjects
 * 3) Something else

CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Zeltiq (who have their own page btw) maintain that CoolSculpting and Cryolipolysis are not two terms for the same thing, as you seemed to have implied with "the medical term (Cryolipolysis), the consumer term (CoolSculpting)...".

The first matter to clear up before considering renaming and restructuring this article to be about "CoolSculpting", or the creation of a new CoolSculpting article, is whether CoolSculpting as a product even meets notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.17.174 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. Zeltiq looks to be a redirect? If I'm missing something and it does have a page, in my opinion it should be merged per WP:ORGVANITY, even if it does scrape by on notability grounds. Here are some links RE Coolsculpting and verifying notability: CBS News, ABC News, The Daily Mail, USA Today, LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc. I used the language "medical term" versus "consumer term", because most mainstream press discuss "coolsculpting" while medical journals discuss "Cryolipolysis" CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is Zeltiq_Aesthetics
 * Oh, I was missing something! It looks like a lot of the information on that page is incorrect, unsourced or not supported by the source and the sources used don't change my perspective. What do you think about me starting a merge discussion on that page and a rename discussion on this page, such that the outcome (if supported by consensus) would be a single "CoolSculpting" article with a lot of content about the Cryolipolysis method it uses and a sub-section for the corporate history related to it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Cryolipolysis can continue to exist under that name. If there are any concerns whether Zeltiq Aesthetics is notable enough for a separate article, they can be addressed via AfD or by talk page discussion. My personal opinion is there is nothing wrong with the Zeltiq Aesthetics article. If CoolSculpting is merely Zeltiq's trade name for cryolipolysis it's not evident how a mere name could have independent notability. In that case keeping it as a redirect to Cryolipolysis seems fine. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cryolipolysis → ? – According to The Daily Mail, Cryolipolysis is a trademark of Zeltiq Aesthetics, who use it in the CoolSculpting device. The technique was developed at the Massachusetts General Hospital and licensed to Zeltiq in exchange for royalties. If Zeltiq does in fact own the trademark, that would seem to make it technically impossible for there to be other "Cryolipolysis" devices, besides counterfeits and DIY. The wording in medical journals did not make it entirely clear to me whether Cryolipolysis and CoolSculpting were virtually synonymous or whether Cryolipolysis was a much broader technique used in other applications, as different sources had slightly different wordings.

Should we have:
 * 3 articles on Zeltiq (company), CoolSculpting (product) and Cryolipolysis (technique)
 * 2 articles one on the medical technique (Cryolipolysis) and one on the commercial aspects (CoolSculpting with a section on Zeltiq)
 * 1 article on either Cryolipolysis or CoolSculpting, with sections devoted to the company and product and details about

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 20:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Cryolipolysis appears to be a generic term, as well as the technical term. It is the one used in the medical literature per . CoolSculpting appears to be a brand name for one use. The main article should be named cryolipolysis and CoolSculpting should be redirected there.
 * This ref seems to indicated that cryolipolysis is not a brand name as a low case is used "Zeltiq cryolipolysis device is FDA cleared for skin cooling, as well as various other indications, but not for lipolysis" The Daily Mail is not accurate for anything. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing a search at the reliable sources noticeboard seems to verify your concerns about the Daily Mail. It does look like they have it registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office. When I click around at the list of studies linked to by Doc James, many of them are using CoolSculpting devices or talk about Cryolipolysis, but cite studies about CoolSculpting. Sources about CoolSculpting often spend a lot of article space on Cryolipolysis and vica versa, but then sometimes not at all too. My best guess on the situation is that Cryolipolysis is a generalized term and Zeltiq is merely the most significant device provider, hence why some sources will use them interchangeably like "Cryolipolysis (CoolSculpting)".
 * I do not think Zeltiq Aesthetics is really notable enough for a separate page like there is now. So I would lean towards a CoolSculpting and a Cryolipolysis article, which will naturally have quite a bit of overlap between the two, with Zeltiq being merged to CoolSculpting. CorporateM (Talk) 22:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to pharmaceuticals we typically redirect the brand names to the generic terms and do not have articles on each brand name. The same applies to devices. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to why we would not cover products and businesses that are notable, merely because they sell a medical product. I've certainly written articles about specific brands/companies in the past, such as Proactiv (GA) and Invisalign (GA nominating soon). You're welcome to send those to AfD, but it would seem rather silly. CorporateM (Talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes those articles have some issues. Proactiv was making medical claims based on primary sources.
 * There are close to 1000 brand names of paracetamol. Very few deserve their own article. In this case the brand name CoolSculpting does not need its own page separate from Cryolipolysis Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If the term is being used as a generic trademark (think xerox, kleenex, and kotex), and there is no widely agreed-upon alternative term (unlike the three examples I mentioned) this article should reflect those sources. Yeah, the company's going to hate it... but it happens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so should there be a Zeltiq page or just the one on Cryolipolysis? Zeltiq's IPO was covered in Bloomberg and the San Jose Mercury News, but they are not nearly as notable as CoolSculpting. If we shouldn't cover it all, I can keep working on my draft with the aim of just a Cryolipolysis article. CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the company and whether or not it is notable independent of this product. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably the question is just over whether there should be a three paragraph stub, like the one in place currently, but using press reports, rather than primary sources. My own advice at WP:ORGVANITY says we usually create an article on the product if it is more notable than the company, as is the case here. However if convention is to not to do that in this case, there are some bits of source material about IPO, business growth, a management "shakeup", etc. that has no place on a Cryolipolysis page. CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We do add information about the companies that manufacture devices to the articles on devices occasionally. This does not require the article to use the brand name of the device. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cryolipolysis - 2 questions
Hello, here are my two humble, technical questions about that I have about Cryolipolysis, and would very much to see answers in the article:


 * 1) What is the maximal temperature that Cryolipolysis instruments inflict on the skin?...
 * 2) Does some areas require higher or lower temperatures? or the treatments' temperatures are always homogenous?

Thanks, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Commercial brand in the lead
It is worth mentionning that Coolsculping is not a generic word, but indeed a registred trade mark. I am questionning if naming a commercial company in the lead is in line with WP:COVERT. May I propose to rephrase the sentence:
 * " Specific treatments are using medical devices called CoolSculpting made by Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc." 

into:
 * " 'Coolsculpting' is a registred trade mark, not to be confused with the generic wording 'cryolypolisis' "

which is more neutral and down to the point. Paulmartin357 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have rephrased to tone it down. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Severe side effects
Alexbrn did revert my contribution about severe side effects. There are three parts to be discussed: Please comment on the "poorly" sourced and the "non-sourced", one by one. I am proposing to at least request sources for the existing statement (item 3 above). I don't understand why it has been reverted. Paulmartin357 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) description of severe side effects, with pictures, sourced from SFK Info, the official publication of Swiss association of aestheticians
 * 2) mention of severe side effects, sourced from one of the players of the market
 * 3) request for sources for an undocumented statement.
 * Please see WP:MEDRS and remember WP:CIR. I'm not inclined to indulge you in another tedious exchange where you are not up to speed on these WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, except that in Switzerland it is not a "medical" treatment, eventhough some MD's are practicing it too. It is simply an "aesthetic" procedure that can be practiced by anybody, including by simple aetheticians (see my "poor" source). Once again WP:WORLD, what is valid in the US shall not be valid across the entire world. For me, WP:MEDRS does not apply here.
 * WP:MEDRS shall not prevent you to answer to point #3 here above. Paulmartin357 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes MEDRS applies. It applies to all intervention that may affect health. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Approvals" for Zeltiq
The section and sources below overinterpret what is being "approved" for this device. The FDA did not approve the safety and efficacy of Zeltiq - that is not the process of FDA review for devices. The approval was for "interstate commerce" only, and the manufacturer must comply with several regulations concerning labeling and manufacturing quality. Further points: 1) the Medscape source is not a direct source; 2) the 510K is written by the applicant - Zeltiq - not by the FDA, so the assertions about efficacy at different body parts are only the opinion of the applicant; 3) it is promotional, WP:PROMO, to recite the 510k as a source for efficacy at different body locations. --Zefr (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * as indicated for cold-assisted lipolysis (breakdown of fat) on the abdomen. The FDA has cleared the cooling device for fat reduction in other areas:


 * Flanks (sometimes called "Love Handles") in May 2012
 * Double chins (submental fat) in September 2015
 * Bra fat, back fat, and fat underneath the buttocks (sometimes called “Banana Rolls”) in March 2016
 * Upper arm in November 2016

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cryolipolysis - A depiction of cryolipolysis procedure.jpg

Merge
Was discussed here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:I am One of Many you have still not responded here? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James I read the section linked and I even searched on "Cryolipolysis" and it does not appear. Why don't you send it to AfD and get community input? --I am One of Many (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:I am One of Many it was not deleted. It should not be deleted. A number of related topics were simple merged into one article. And the discussion of that is linked above. Have clarified at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)