Talk:Osteosarcoma

Spam
visit my site www.osteosarcomasupport.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.93.78 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You inserted these links:


 * Superior Survival for Treatment of Osteosarcoma
 * Adriamycin, Cisplatin and Caffeine results in superior survival for osteosarcoma


 * You are citing scientific studies, and I would urge you to employ proper referencing. An abstract is more than "just" an external link. JFW | T@lk  1 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Statistics
"It affects 400 children under age 15 and 500 adults between the ages of 15-30 every year." In what country or state? (U.S.?) Could someone please provide relative numbers... and mention to what state/country this applies. Phlebas 11:42, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Animals
This is a Osteosarcoma page for Humans and not dogs or cats. Anything that references dogs and cats should be moved to a Canine Osteosarcoma page or a Feline Osteosarcoma page
 * Generally sections of an article are only split off into their own articles when they become too long. The title of this article is "osteosarcoma", not "osteosarcoma in humans".  However, if you feel strongly about it, I can create a new article and copy and paste the dog and cat info there.  The dog and cat sections need some expansion anyway.  --Joelmills 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Treatment ranking
I have removed the "best treatment" section because it's a blatant copyright violation from this page. It also doesn't tell you anything at all about what the treatments actually are, which is a serious shortcoming. Please feel free to provide useful, interesting, and properly sourced information (like the drugs used, instead of irrelevant bits, like the country of the publishing author), but please do not just copy information off of someone else's list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am referencing from my webpage osteosarcomasupport.org many paople look at wikipedia and not my webpage, so I reference some stuff here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.224.63 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a study
This Wikipedia article was studied on April 3, 2009 by three independent observers, two surgeons specializing in musculoskeletal tumour surgery and a medical student. They compared the article to information on the National Cancer Institute's website. They used a questionnaire they developed to test the sites for completeness and accuracy. They published their results the following year in a medical journal:


 * Leithner, A., Werner, M., Glehr, M., Friesenbichler, J., Keithner, K., & Windhager R. (2010). Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: A trustworthy patients' information? Journal of the Medical Informatics Association, 17(4), 373-374.

According to a critique of their results, they had concluded that "The quality of information about osteosarcoma found in the English language version of Wikipedia was good but inferior to the patient information from NCI." and that "Non-peer reviewed websites providing health information, such as Wikipedia, should include links to sites such as NCI and other more definitive sources such as professional and international organizations. Frequent checks should be used to ensure external links are of the highest quality."

Am I alone in thinking that if two surgeons specializing in musculoskeletal tumour surgery, a medical student, and three independent observers took the time to analyze the article as they did, that their actions thoroughly undermine their declaration that the information is "non-peer reviewed", and that their concerns would've been rendered moot had they taken them to this discussion page, if not simply made the necessary changes themselves?

It strikes me as rather irresponsible of them to woefully and publicly lament that no one had yet stepped up to flesh out the article to their satisfaction, when the whole point of Wikipedia is that they, as interested and knowledgeable visitors with access to many more reliable sources than the general public, are not only empowered but strongly encouraged and (one would hope) quite motivated to do it themselves, for the benefit of all.

I suggest the next time such professionals and scholars deign to visit Wikipedia for a critical study of its untrustworthy, incomplete, or inadequately sourced content, they become part of the solution and, after completing their review, simply make the necessary changes, and/or raise their concerns and ask for help on the article's discussion page, the Village Pump, IRC, or via the methods described at Questions.

In the meantime, someone with access to that journal should look over their specific findings and see what changes should be made here, taking into account that a handful of relatively minor changes have been made to it since they studied it. Thanks. —mjb (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I relate to your opinion, but just to play devil's advocate, I would think that the purpose of the study was not just to review this particular article, but to generalize the findings to all medical articles on Wikipedia, and that even if the reviewers in this case did have the time and motivation to improve the page, they were probably operating under the assumption that in many cases, a doctor who is an expert in the field would not have the time and/or motivation to do so.


 * As far as it being "non-peer reviewed," I would be interested to know whether the medical articles in any encyclopedia are peer reviewed, or even written by experts in the field. In any case, I don't know what NCI is or whether it is publicly accessible, but if it does have additional or superior information, it would definitely be nice to incorporate that information into this article and any other medical articles that are lacking. ---Matt Lib Soc (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Treatment and Prognosis - acupuncture section
I added the multiple issues tag to this section. I'm not sure quite how it should be dealt with, because it could be useful to include information about acupuncture as a treatment, but this section has so many problems that maybe it should just be deleted and replaced. First off, it seems to be written like an advertisement, and it just has one citation at the end, and that citation just lists a book without any page numbers or anything. Secondly, it is unbelievably poorly written: the second paragraph is almost a complete repeat of the first; in each paragraph it is twice stated that "there are many benefits to acupuncture;" there are also numerous spelling and grammatical errors, and a lot of the language seems overly colloquial. ---Matt Lib Soc (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone addressed the problem by removing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Updates
This article appears to have been updated with incorrect information in the past year. In the section titled "Treatment," it states that Mifamurtide is used after surgery to kill remaining tumor cells. Mifamurtide is only one of many chemo drugs that are used against osteosarcoma, and, while it is available in the the EU, it is not even approved in the U.S. The next sentence states that rotationplasty is a surgical option after the tumor has been removed. Rotationplasty is a form of amputation that can be done at the time the knee section containing the tumor is removed. It is not a subsequent surgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.192.189 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight given to debunking fluoridation as a cause
The section on causes takes the time to dispel the existence of a link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma, which is good, but then it digresses, discussing the general benefits of water fluoridation. --Ori.livneh (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:VET
This is one of the most popular pages in WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Understanding
I still don’t understand 95.149.105.131 (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Lab research too preliminary for the encyclopedia
This revert was justified because a) it is early-stage in vitro and in vivo primary research which the user is attempting to promote from their own lab studies, WP:SOAPBOX, and b) an evident and undeclared WP:COI is at work. Tlisse has been edit-warring here to the point of WP:3RR and on other articles. Better to wait a few years for the concept to be confirmed and included in an independent WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP:MEDPRI sources are not generally appropriate for this article. When the information appears in a review article, it could be added and the review cited.  When that happens, I encourage editors to remember that we need to Cite sources, don't describe them.  That could be as simple as "the metastastic process involves the Vitamin D receptor and SNAI2", without saying anything about the experimental design.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)