Talk:Diverticulosis

Treatment Updates
The "Treatment" section should be updated with more up-to-date opinions, for instance according to http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1013634026.html (and some other sites as well), the opinion that popcorn, seeds, nuts, etc. are to be avoided has come under question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.156.242.39 (talk • contribs)

Acronym use.
I believe the first use of an acronym in an article should define what it means. NIDDK isn't defined, only referenced in the references section. This leaves the reader with no idea what is being talked about.

Shawnkielty 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure diverticulosis/ diverticular disease is diagnosed by colonoscopy. Not Stool test.

Natho2 21:20, 5 May 2008

My diverticulosis was monitored by colonoscopy and several CT Scans, although I had had Sepsis, Peritonitis, Perforated bowel and Diverticulitis prior to this.

Review
Recent review in Am J Gastroenterol: JFW |  T@lk  10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'Days Lost From Work'
Near the end of the article, it refers to surgery for Diverticulitis. 'Days lost from work' would be subjective, and would not necessarily apply to every patient. --71.111.23.79 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Phrase removed from lede
The lede had a sentence "This is uncommon before the age of 40 for some unknown reason Diverticulosis is being treated in patients as young as 35 years old, and increases in incidence after that age." - I have reverted the last edit (30 August 2009) as unsourced: the sentence now reads "This is uncommon before the age of 40, and increases in incidence after that age." which is (i) better English; (ii) less confusing; and (iii) agrees with the cited ref. If the phrase that I reverted is actually true, then perhaps somebody could find a suitable source, and also word it to read as good English. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

'un-wiki-fied'
I am 100% sure the guy who first wrote this article (or at least changed it to the most recent state, of course, before I edited it) didn't learn how to write a proper wiki article. This article lacks links to the other article, and definitely needs some cleanup. I added categories and seperated it into chapters, but someone will have to do the rest.--125.131.129.132 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

References 12 and 13
Both refer to the same JAMA article. The Newswise article (13) simply refers to the JAMA article (12).

The veracity of the JAMA article has questionable as the conclusion reads:
 * In this large, prospective study of men without known diverticular disease, nut, corn, and popcorn consumption did not increase the risk of diverticulosis or diverticular complications. The recommendation to avoid these foods to prevent diverticular complications should be reconsidered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.172.156 (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Drugs that cause gut rot
- perforated diverticular disease more common in those on glucocorticoids and those on opioids. You can guess why. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A High-Fiber Diet Does Not Protect Against Asymptomatic Diverticulosis
Somebody who knows what they are doing should probably add something about this to the article.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508511015095 --24.147.242.40 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. The squatting theory is looking better and better, now that Burkitt's hunch about fiber has failed in the case of colon cancer and diverticulosis.Jonathan108 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0ChIZsdHY
 * Dr Michael Greger provides a short video explaining why this study is bad science. Perhaps studies should be read and examined before being used as evidence? Headbeater (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Explaining" or speculating? The theory that squatting, not fiber, is the relevant factor is just as valid. Look at the carnivorous Masai in Africa, who avoid fiber almost completely.Jonathan108 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reservations about including this article the way it's included in the entry. Wikipedia isn't a secondary source; its editors lack appropriate qualification to weigh in on disputes among experts in a field to decide who's right. This is one study, not a literature review ranging over several studies. It's probably worth having the seemingly notable fact that one study contradicts the high fiber diet theory (if it's notable; I assume Gastroenterology is an important journal for this area of research), but this article shouldn't be used to challenge claims made by reliable secondary sources cited by the Wikipedia entry.50.191.21.222 (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. You are saying that a peer-reviewed study shouldn't be used to challenge unproven claims, even though review articles have been published expressing confidence in the study and confirming that the unproven claims are baseless. What are these "reliable secondary sources" you refer to? Are any of them recent? Or are they obsolete? Jonathan108 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Diagram of colon
Inclusion of a diagram of the colon, labeling e.g. 'sigmoid colon', 'ascending colon', 'descending colon','transverse colon' etc would be helpful.

As would additional epidemiology, eg incidence, prevalence, mortality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.73.166 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)