Talk:Intestinal pseudo-obstruction

Untitled
I think IND may be a subset (one of the causes) of CIPO. (see Neuronal dysplasia: A controversial pathological correlate of intestinal pseudo-obstruction) 202.65.43.185 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 20 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CheckDO. Peer reviewers: MrBugsyBubz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Linaclotide
Linzess the trade name in the US for Linaclotide which is mentioned and referenced in the treatment section has received FDA approval. It's listed as not yet having it and this section should be edited perhaps with the edition of a new link about the FDA approval? I'm a Wikipedia newbie and am unsure of how to word this unless it's added into the first list of drugs? Anyone have thoughts or willing to edit this?

--TzipiTzipora (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Medical Treatment Section: Cannabis
I'm proposing an update to the treatment options under this section, particularly cannabis use. There are eight sentences containing claims and only three supporting citations. None of these three citations are meta-analyses. One citation is not research at all, but a journal article describing cannabis use for gastrointestinal disorders. This section needs to be more strongly supported with proper citations or stripped of unsubstantiated claims. CheckDO (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review for Intestinal pseudo-obstruction

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CheckDO


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * intestinal pseudo-obstruction

Lead:
 * clear and easy to understand
 * links to other pages are helpful
 * generally contains a good concise summary/descriptor for the major sections of the article. The only possible exception to this is the lead's part about diagnosis with mentions of Ogilvie's syndrome and a specific study. It may be best to move the more detailed parts of this under the dedicated diagnosis section.

Content:
 * Content appears to be up-to-date but references are not. See below for references.

Tone and Balance:
 * Good neutral balance. Written to inform, not convince. Continue to give particular attention to neutral, balanced points to the "potential treatments" section for any future edits or additions.

Sources and References:
 * Generally reliable sources. The reference for NORML is cited as a potentially unreliable source. I'm torn on this. They are a non-profit advocacy group so you could argue the source is not neutral. However, this page serves almost like a review (as it cites a lot of the relevant research), and including the source adds balance to the article. The wiki article is written in such a way that it provides appropriate weight to the subject.
 * Potentially out-of-date references, with many references being before 2010. However, this may not be a concern if there has not been a significant change in knowledge and research of the topic in the last 20 or so years. This may be something to consider.
 * I'm unclear on which reference additions were yours so it is very likely that the newly added references are the references from the last 10 years. If so, then the additions are particularly useful.

Organization:
 * Clear, logical structure of article and sections

Images and Media:
 * No images or media have been added. Did want to congratulate you on the fantastic infobox changes, though! This would be a great place for an image.

Overall Impressions:
 * So much content added in previously underdeveloped sections! Written clearly and concisely. Previously developed sections were cleared up and summarized (such as the treatment section). All of these changes make the article seem much more balanced and accessible to readers with varying educational backgrounds. The infobox is a great addition.

MrBugsyBubz (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Reflections on month's work
For the past month I have been working on this article after a recent case of intestinal pseudo-obstruction confounded myself and other medical treatment team members. I have added to the infobox, added to the lead's section so that it was a summary for the article, and reorganized the subtopics into lists.

Treatment Section Changes: Of particular note, I have extracted material from this article related to Cannabis and TPN section. The section on TPN was already well included on the article page "TPN", and a link was provided. The summary on Cannabis was extrapolating the use of Cannabis in relief of other GI symptoms. Cannabis may one day be part of treatment but needs to be studied further. CheckDO (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

CIPO, IPO, and Ogilvie
Mathematically speaking, do I understand correctly that IPO = Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction + Ogilvie syndrome? If yes, this article has to reflect it, as both subclassifications have their own articles. Викидим (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that Ogilvie syndrome is specifically acute colonic pseudo-obstruction while Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction is chronic. I could add a classification to the diagnosis section of Intestinal pseudo-obstruction to specify that both Ogilvie syndrome and Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction are form of IPO if that would help clarify things. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would help my understanding immensely (and will probably help other readers as well, as they might not even know that the other article exists). Symmetrically, it would be also great to refer to IPO from the CIPO article lead. Викидим (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll add to IPO in a second but I'm not quite sure how to fit it into the CIPO article yet. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)