Talk:Lipedema

Comment
If I were to assess this article, I would regard it as a subtle advertisement for liposuction, rather than an article on a valid medical topic. The concept of "lipedema" is being created in order to market liposuction procedures, particularly in the very young, and this article legitimizes that concept. Because Wikipedia articles are "borrowed and reprinted" all over the Web, this article desperately needs vetting by actual physiologists and internal medical specialists, not cosmetic surgeons.

The statistics given in the article for incidence levels of this "malady" seem, to this writer, to be highly inflated. There appears to be no foundation of basic research into the condition cited for the article, either. The two references given are both from the field of cosmetic surgery. Therefore, I am highly suspicious of this article.

It would not be the first time that Wikipedia has been exploited for personal gain, but, based on its blatancy, this article ought to be subjected to vetting by persons with extensive medical or physiological knowledge. An article about the "concept of lipedema" would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but the "condition of lipedema" has not been recognized by the world medical community at this time, and therefore is undeserving of an article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the concept of lipedema is legitimate. There are entries in legitimate medical web sites for the term (e.g. WebMD), and compared to ordinary obesity, it has distinctive features, complications, and treatment options.  I'd say the problem is that the last two sentences of the first paragraph plug the liposuction method.  Given that the treatment is not universally accepted, it should not be listed there, but rather in the section "Treatment", among other options, where there is room for pro-and-con details.  And bizarrely, liposuction is not even mentioned in the "Treatment" section.  DWorley (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the article in line with the details of the medical diagnosis as outlined in the ICD code details. 2600:4040:B35A:7600:31E5:56E4:D2D5:E28D (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello editors, We've greatly improved this article since these last comments were posted, and we would love your feedback on the current version of the article and any input you could provide on making this better. Thanks Fdrs2014 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)FDRS


 * Estimates of the incidence of lipedema vary widely, and range as high as 11% of the post-pubertal female population...


 * I wonder if we're even talking about the same disease, or if it has a definition. Is the article really claiming that 11% of the female population meet the criteria of the differential diagnosis of lipedema from garden-variety obesity? This seems to me like an attempt to claim an awful lot of territory for what otherwise might be a rare diagnosis. If it is really 11%, then most of those 11% have, at worst, very minor problems, and article is totally slanted towards focussing on the much smaller percentage who suffer from the severe and debilitating pathology described in most of the article. 67.170.236.50 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if 11% is correct, it is not only not a rare disease, it is the world's most common disease. I have never heard the claim before for any disease that 1 out of every 10 females on earth have it. This alone discredits the entire article in its present form. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted in (Langendoen et. al, 2009) I could reasonably accept 11% of presentations to 2ary/3ary oedema clinics instead of 11% of the general population 101.165.135.228 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Particular problems with chart, where the primary symptom of "Lymphedema" is given as "Fat deposits," whereas the "lymphedema" article in wikipedia defines it as "a condition of localized fluid retention and tissue swelling caused by a compromised lymphatic system."

Also in the chart, under "Venous Insufficiency/Venous Stasis," it says "Stemmer's sign may or may not be present in Lymphedema/Lipolymphedema." Which is irrelevant because this is the "Venous Insufficiency/Venous Stasis" column, not the "Lymphedema" or "Lipolymphedema" column.

I know nothing about lipedema and I am confident that neither does the author of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Cummins (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC) ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

I have a few serious concerns about this article, some of which have been noted above. Generally it appears to be widely accepted in internal medicine that lipoedema is very distinct from obesity.

The ICD 10 codes listed, are not correct and refer to other quite distinct diseases. The photo provided appears to show an obese person - marked central obesity is noted at the top of the frame, and almost critically, it does not show the feet - which is a striking almost pathonamonic feature that distinguishes it from other odematous conditions, and does not demonstrate the bilateral nature of it - I would not be confident at all that it is a confirmed case, let alone a good example of the condition.

I fully support the previous doubts about the prevelence of the condition - 11% is absurdly high for a condition that is more likely 11 per million women. Unfortunately the epidemiology of the condition is poorly reported in the literature, but the context around the absence of a specific ICD-10 code, the lack of research etc. might persuade a reasonable person that it wasn't 1 in 10. The paper cited to support this number is not an epidemiology study, nor does it actually list any numbers or rates at all beyond the author citing themselves, where that citation also lacks any scientific merit.

Further, the article lists weight loss as sometimes being successful - as far as current sources in Australia categorize the condition, weight loss would support the diagnosis of obesity, and near exclude this condition.

Otherwise I hope in the future mention is made to the different phenotypes and presentations of what would seem to be a fairly heterogeneous disease.

If anyone is interested in seeking to improve the article I suggest "Lipoedema: from clinical presentation to therapy. A review of the literature S.I. Langendoen, L. Habbema, T.E.C. Nijsten and H.A.M. Neumann (BJD, 2009)" as a well written, well cited and accepted paper with many further references to other material, which I feel would make a much better source document than the current work that seems to be based mainly off Foldi F, Foldi 2006, which instead appears to be a fringe, poor quality source with very few citations (and I would query it's general acceptance). 13:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)~


 * Would you please take a look at this? I had reverted content removal that was not explained with an ES. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a decent source. I will work on it more tomorrow. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

On what basis is that a good source? There's a stuff scattered all through that site that is poorly referenced or goes against the prevailing body of work on the topic (e.g that 11% stat) Why not refer to the original literature sources
 * Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS, WP:MEDINDY/WP:MEDCOI All suggest that other literature sources I suggested should be used in preference to your suggestion, which leans heavily on what WP:MEDANIMAL suggests you should avoid, in placing undue weight on a single source, which itself represents major biases coming through from the underlying source. You didn't seek to explain or answer the question, just tried to hide behind a policy link? Have you even read the policy you're referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.135.228 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reword the lead and trimmed a bunch more. Done for now. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Association between obesity and lipedema
The Australian source that is cited to support this statement says exactly the opposite - that women of any weight can get this disorder. Same thing said by the UK’s National Health Service site. So I’ve removed it from the main article and also the side bar as a risk factor. Dakinijones (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Need image of milder case
Current image is of an incredibly severe case of lipidema which gives a false idea of what vast majority of suffers experience. So we should find a mild image instead or as well as the one we have. Unfortunately I’m no good with tracking down Creative Commons images. Dakinijones (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How is this a medical condition?
Perhaps because it is only treated by cosmetic practitioners, this "condition" has no diagnostic code and its treatment probably is not compensated by insurers. If a person went to an internal medicine specialist with this condition, they might be given a weight loss diet to follow, but the physician wouldn't offer to treat them directly for it. In fact, if a diabetic person with this condition went to an internist, and the internist could see their legs, the internist would not mention to them that they have this debilitating condition, nor offer to treat them for it. With any other clearly observable condition, if a physician overlooks it, that's medical malpractice.

In my opinion, this condition is a construct of German cosmetic practitioners, and therefore can only "affect" (business being business) people in their ambit. What is the incidence in Japan? What is the history of the understanding of this illness? Is it preventable? How many life-years are lost to it annually? Has this "debilitating condition"'s worldwide incidence been scientifically studied?

Numerically, what are the effects of treatment? What is the "official" disease progression? Does anyone collect disability payments as a result of it? What are the diagnostic criteria? Are there any support groups? And, has its causation been studied scientifically? This entire topic is about as connected to the field of medicine as are double chins and split hair ends. Why do we even allow it? Agree that the "concept of lipedema" is worthy of our coverage (if RS do as much), but mythology presented as fact, which this is, is not worthy.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You’re funny. The medical diagnosis code for this disease is E88.28.  It’s not fake news. 2600:4040:B35A:7600:31E5:56E4:D2D5:E28D (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Very sexist wording
it mostly talks about sufferers as women, I have it and am a man The JOJOLands (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)