Talk:Olfactory reference syndrome

Useful sources
This is a literature search carried out on 8/1/14 for suitable secondary sources listed on PubMed and on Google Books. It does not include case reports, and due to the lack of suitable secondary sources I went back further than 5 years.
 * -- appears to be the most recent systematic review available. I will be working from a version I translated from Spanish with Google translate. Hope there are not too many errors because of this.
 * -- another systematic review
 * -- another systematic review



Requested move 08 January 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved per consensus. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Olfactory Reference Syndrome → Olfactory reference syndrome – Lesion nominated the redirect Olfactory reference syndrome for deletion so this page could be moved over it. The stated reason was that they believe the article title should be sentence case not title case. Looking at the sources cited in the article, some use title case and others use sentence case, so I believe that a discussion needs to happen to determine which case Wikipedia should use. As RfD is the wrong forum for moves, this is a procedural RM discussion and I am neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support as nom-- it is my understanding that unless it is a proper noun we should use sentence case? Lesion  ( talk ) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is generally correct (although there are also other reasons something can be capitalised, e.g acronyms). In this case though sources appear to be inconsistent about whether this is a proper noun or not, hence the need for the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree they are inconsistent, however yesterday I carried out a more thorough literature search (see above, these are all suitable sources that I plan to use in the article, barring WP:MEDDATE), and the majority appear to use the sentence case for this term. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it should be Olfactory reference syndrome. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Yes we do not capitalize here much. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. From WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Use lowercase, except for proper names." That's how all medical syndrome articles are displayed in Wikipedia. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. --Hordaland (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move to sentence case, per review of results like this and established Wikipedia standard.  02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an uncontroversial move that should have occurred as per WP:G6 via db-move on Olfactory reference syndrome.  The current title clearly violates WP:TITLEFORMAT and convention for other medical syndromes/diseases/disorders.  --Scott Alter (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – should have just been done as a technical. If "some use title case and others use sentence case", that is sufficient evidence that it is not consistently capitalized in sources, so per MOS:CAPS we should just fix it.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I was nominating the redirect for speedy deletion, but I don't know what happened instead. I will mark this issue as resolved on WTMED. Lesion  ( talk ) 03:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lesion, in the future, just ask an admin at WT:MED to do the honors (it still needs a db-g6 admin delete before you can make the move). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I recently changed my Wikipedia "skin" to modern from vector, and although everything is pretty and blue now, I am still getting used to the new layout, apologies. Lesion  ( talk ) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * 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.

To do list

 * Convert lists to prose
 * A table to illustrate variation in basic epidemiologic data as reported by the 4 reviews on this topic Lesion  ( talk ) 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaps in the psychiatric literature on ORS
Currently I have not encountered a source which mentions these issues in relation to ORS, yet I feel they are important to raise, whether only on the talk page or in the article when suitable sources are available:
 * I have added the qualifier "abnormal" body odors, since arguably it is normal to have a degree of body odor. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest the phrase "foul or offensive body odor", which a good number of the researchers use.  Mark D Worthen PsyD  10:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for feedback. While we should ordinarily state exactly what the sources are saying, I feel the addition of the qualifier "abnormal" is a "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" situation. Normal body odors may be considered "foul" and "offensive". The suggested diagnostic criteria for this condition state that medical conditions which cause abnormal body odors negate the diagnosis. Therefore, it follows that someone may have ORS while having entirely normal body odors. Advertising has warped the public's idea of what is normal. Lesion  ( talk ) 11:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. You persuaded me. :o) -  Mark D Worthen PsyD  01:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The reviews state that the majority of ORS patients cannot detect their own supposed odor, and suggests that this fact strengthens the ORS diagnosis. As noted in genuine halitosis patients, olfactory fatigue impairs the individuals' ability to detect their own smell. It follows that if patients with real odors cannot detect themselves, then the fact that someone cannot detect an odor, yet still believes that others can detect an odor is therefore not necessarily equal to ORS. Lesion  ( talk ) 03:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sexism warning) ORS is said to effect males in a 2:1 ratio with females. Normally, "this kind of condition" is reported much more frequently in females, who are under more pressure from society and advertising to appear a certain way. Why do more males believe they have offensive odor? Could it be that males are generally more odorous than females and therefore more likely to develop an oversensitivity following a few bad experiences where others have made comments about them smelling? I also note from our body odor article that in humans, females have a more acute sense of smell than males. Might this impact on the gender distribution in ORS? Lesion  ( talk ) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Many (or indeed, all) of the medications that are recommended to treat ORS are xerogenic. Xerostomia is a contributing factor in genuine halitosis. I wonder if halitosis secondary to dry mouth is significant in reports regarding failure of treatment? Iatrogenically adding genuine halitosis to ORS seems counter-intuitive... Lesion  ( talk ) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bromidrosiphobia
Purely based on the definition in this article, I believe it is indistinguishable from ORS, however I have yet to find any source to explicitly state this. Lesion ( talk ) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Begum 2011 does treat these as synonyms. I will merge the article as I believe it is noncontroversial.  Lesion  ( talk ) 03:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)