Talk:PANDAS/Archive 3

Reviews
















Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Experimental treatments
I noticed that the content of the section that mentioned the Perlmutter 1998 IVIG/PEX trial was removed.. This is surprising as it is in all reviews and easily cited. SandyGeorgia, since this edit was from you and had several changes, what was the rationale for removing the experimental treatment section? Buster23 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I've now restored it, but I haven't carefully reviewed every source-- as far as I know, most of them are reviews, but there may be some in there that aren't. Still needs further checking, and since we have newer reviews, we should use those in a general update.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph is not the same as citing the sentence
Sandy, please explain your edit here. I tagged that I wanted a reference for the sentence. Please provide. If you are asserting it is in Pichichero, can you state the page number? I can retag as failed verifiability, but it was unclear what was cited, the paragraph or the sentence. Buster23 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs were cited-- when a para is cited, it's not necessary to cite each sentence. If you're asserting that text isn't in Pichichero, I'll have to go back through the article history to see who added it and where a citation was lost.  Is that what you're asserting, because the entire paragraph was cited, and stepping back through diffs to see if something was lost along the way will be time consuming?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, found reference. It is in Pichichero but in a table highlighting the statement by Kurlan and Singer that Choreiform might be undiagnosed Chorea. These are very distinct presentations and it is highly unlikey that someone knowledgable about chorea would confuse them, however, the comment is in Pichichero in table 4.  Buster23 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I've been confusing on this matter, but I'm unsure who added any of the Pichichero text here, so can't speak off the top of my head to it. I don't believe it was me, but ... three years is a long time.   (I have spent three years selling my house, relocating cross country, juggling computers where some of my sources are stored, and under construction, and have only recently had access again to all my papers.)  Later this week, I will go through my papers again to find Pichichero, and step back through the diffs to see who added Pichichero text, unless you're OK with that text now? Please let me know if I need to do that. At any rate, even if someone else added the text, I would have watched closely that each para was sourced.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit was added by Euripedes (I think that's how his name was spelled). There is certainly a lot of weight given to Kurlan's studies on Tourettes children and ignoring that this group of children are quite distinct from the onset of symptoms.  I'll wait till tomorrow to edit afresh.  Buster23 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably mean Eubulides? He was a very good editor, gone now, knew autism better than other conditions, and as I'm sure you know, PANDAS is a tough topic; he did his best, and no real work has been done here for three years. I'm done for the day, and will be out all day tomorrow.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This piece is done-- OK if I archive it in the interest of length? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this section can archive -- seems it's only you and me on this article.Buster23 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed for discussion
After significant cleanup of new text added, there are still many problems introduced by recent additions. Rather than cleanup the "History" information (which is POV because it's incomplete and relies on primary sources), I've copied it here for cleanup before re-incorporation. The problems are: I could keep cleaning up, but the editor introducing this text has not engaged on article or user talk in spite of several posts from me, so I'll hold off before doing more work. Text removed for cleanup below: Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a multitude of high-quality recent secondary reviews on PANDAS that comply with WP:MEDRS-- there is no reason to cite primary studies here, and doing so has introduced POV.
 * 2) Please link to PMIDs: the citation format in this article uses the Diberri format.  One only needs to plug a PMID number into here, and a citation template consistent with this article is generated.  In PubMed, you can click on the relevant fields to determine if a particular article is a secondary review-- there is no reason here to cite primary sources, and care should be taken not to cherry pick sources to create POV.
 * 3) The new text needs review for encyclopedic language (see WP:MEDMOS).
 * 4) Footnotes go after puncutation, no space, see WP:FN.
 * 5) Some confusion here between GAS and GABHS.
 * 6) I found a couple instances of exact text copied, please take care with WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM.
 * Can we archive this section. I can't figure out which version of which text this was referring to. Buster23 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

History

 * This text relies on primary sources, and is decidely POV, as it presents only one side of the contentious debate over PANDAS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PLAGIARISM; the rest of the article need scrutiny. This Dispatch article may help writers here work on paraphrasing: Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches While the Swedo, Leckman paper is licensed Creative Commons, we still need to use quote marks when directly cut-and-pasting, and attribution is needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS) was first hypothesized in 1998, it was based on ten years of research by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Two parallel lines of research - (1) longitudinal studies of OCD and (2) a series of investigations of Sydenham's chorea (SC) - established a connection between childhood-onset obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and prior infections with Group A streptococcal (GAS) infections. Researchers evaluated children with OCD and found that a subgroup had an atypical symptom course, characterized by an unusually rapid onset (from no symptoms to significant symptoms within 24-48 hours), a relapsing-remitting course of symptoms, and significant other neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as separation anxiety, hyperactivity, and tics. In many cases, a bacterial or viral infection, such as influenza, varicella and Group A streptococcal (GAS) pharyngitis, preceded the OCD symptoms. The early researchers of this condition originally suggested the name, “Pediatric Infection-Triggered Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders (PITANDS) “to reflect the variety of infectious organisms that had been observed."
 * Starting at the top, processing through work to do here. Is there any objection to archiving this section?  History needs to be entirely rewritten, and this was plagiarized, and was from primary sources, so wasn't useful.  Unless there's an objection, I'd like to archive it so we can see where we stand on each item on the page and get to work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who introduced the text. Do you know. It wasn't me and it wasn't you. Was this in the original article? Can you provide the reference that this was plagarized from since it appears a summary. I appreciate your point on incompleteness, but isn't that an argument to work on completing rather than removal?  We've also been going a fast clip, have you signalled the editor who introduced the text on their talk page to see if they want to engage on the discussion before archiving and removing the note? It looks like the text is only a week old. Buster23 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like time to archive this thread. Any objections? Buster23 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Identification
I was re-reading the section marked Identification and see that the content is not consistent with a number of the reviews or the NIMH website (i.e., what is cited). It looks like this section was changed several times and perhaps the citation wasn't updated (trying to figure that out). Regardless, the text doesn't match the current page.

If we just update for consistency with the NIMH website it would be:
 * 1) Presence of clinically significant obsessions, compulsions and/or tics
 * 2) Unusually abrupt onset of symptoms or a relapsing-remitting course of symptom severity.
 * 3) Prepubertal onset
 * 4) Association with other neuropsychiatric symptoms
 * 5) Association with streptococcal infection

Another would be to use a variant of Murphy and Kurlan review in 2011 that uses: "PANDAS refers to a disorder in children who manifest symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), tic disorders, or both associated with a distinctive course, a temporal association with group A streptococcal (GAS) infection, and evidence of concurrent neurologic abnormalities (ie, severe hyperactivity, fine motor skill loss [handwriting deterioration], or adventitious movements such as choreiform movements).1 The distinctive course is defined by prepubertal onset of symptoms, episodic symptom severity, and a range of other psychiatric symptoms (eg, irritability, frequent mood changes, separation anxiety, hyperactivity, late-onset attention problems, personality change, oppositional behaviors), sleep disturbances, and deterioration in math skills and handwriting.2,3"

There's also a very recent consensus position between Leckman, Rose and Swedo that reads (http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/PANDAS-to-PANS2012.pdf) : All five diagnostic criteria must be met:
 * 1) Presence of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or a tic disorder
 * 2) Prepubertal symptom onset
 * 3) Acute symptom onset and episodic (relapsing-remitting) course
 * 4) Temporal association between Group A streptococcal infection andsymptom onset/exacerbations
 * 5) Associated with neurological abnormalities, (particularly motoric hyperactivity and choreiform movements)

My opinion is to use the recent Leckman/Rose/Swedo paper -- any objections? Buster23 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would make sense to use the recent Leckman/Rose/Swedo paper.Werelived (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple secondary reviews covering PANDAS: there is no reason to use other papers. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could use Pichichero's paper that we already reference. It seems to have the right text and includes Swedo's 2004 clarification.
 * Presence of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and/or tic disorder
 * Abrupt onset and episodic course of symptoms
 * Association with GAS infections
 * May include neurological abnormalities (motor hyperactivity, subtle choreiform movements)
 * Autoimmunity to basal ganglia of brain in longstanding cases (similar to Sydenham’s chorea)
 * Buster23 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Our priorities for general text addition should include the following (it's not always possible to meet all of these):
 * First, we should use a review article.
 * Second, it should be the most recent.
 * Third, if it is freely available online, that helps our readers.
 * Fourth, we shouldn't be duplicating verbatim the criteria here anyway; we should be writing it in our own words.
 * This, for example, would work (although I'm not tied to this):
 * Pichiero would also work, but it's not freely available. Actually, it wouldn't bother me to just cite it to the NIH; even if not a review article, the NIH invented the thing, so they're surely a good source for listing the proposed criteria.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did find Pichichero online and is already sourced. I'll also reference the NIMH site. I'll update the quote. I would want to be extra careful to not reinterpret words as the criteria has been a source of considerable debate for 10 years.  This is a case where a quote makes sense. Buster23 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine, then. You see, that's how collaborative talk page discussion works. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Buster, since you haven't responded over there yet, please be sure to see this, before text is merged.
 * Also, I wanted to make sure that you understand the issues in quoting diagnostic criteria on neuropsych articles. In this instance, you can probably get away with quoting the entire criteria since it's from the NIMH, but we can never do that with the DSM.  Just wanted you to be aware.  The APA (copyright holder on DSM) is very protective of its copyright, we can't quote entire sections, we always have to paraphrase it in our own words, and when we don't, the WMF (OTRS) gets a letter from the APA.  Just for you to know, since you may encounter this elsewhere.
 * Yes, I found it quite difficult to figure out how exactly to quote the article. I'm not sure the current approach works.  Please look.  Essentially the NIMH website has one set of definition. Pichichero has a slightly different one.  It seems best to be close to the NIMH website (since Pichichero is a bit tough to get). Swedo's 2004 paper referenced by Pichichero would be another excellent choice -- as this was the last formally published version but would be a primary reference since Swedo's 2004 was a commentary to the Kurlan article. Buster23 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please pop up here the full text that you found for Pichiero? I will add it to the defined ref currently in the text.  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is located on page 205 of You can get the PDF of the article online but has a fee. Buster23 (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is located on page 205 of You can get the PDF of the article online but has a fee. Buster23 (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy what about we leave a conclusion on Talk page and archive the discussion. For example, we could leave a conclusion here that Identification for PANDAS is based on Pichichero with additional reference to NIMH website and then leave a reference to the prior section in the archive. It gets tricky as we have autoarchiving going too, but I think this would work. Buster23 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem: moving target
I realize I earlier agreed on this, but this change has resulted in some real problems. What was there before was the correct previous criteria established by the NIMH for PANDAs, and all of the research to this point was based on that criteria, a good deal of which remains unproven. The new text here renders all of the reviews that discussed the problems with that criteria out of context. Yep. archive.org verifies that what was here before was correct. So, the NIH is moving the goalposts, redefining the condition, so how are we to write an article that relies on secondary reviews that reported on the previous criteria?
 * NIH previous versions:
 * Presence of Obsessive-compulsive disorder and/or a tic disorder
 * Pediatric onset of symptoms (age 3 years to puberty)
 * Episodic course of symptom severity
 * Association with group A Beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection (a positive throat culture for strep. or history of Scarlet Fever.)
 * Association with neurological abnormalities (motoric hyperactivity, or adventitious movements, such as choreiform movements)


 * NIH current version is different, since it now accounts for problems with the hypothesis and new PANS hypothesis. I'm unsure if this matters for our purposes, but it certainly shows the problems that exist when the entity defining the condition can move the goalposts, and how are we to put our older reviews in context when they've redefined the condition?  The reviews we report were based on previous definition, so what are we gonna do, show that the NIH changed them? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is the problem with citing an old NIMH web site. We need either to cite Swedo 2004 "separating Fact from Fiction" article which is cited by Pichechero or any of the later reviews from 2009.  The problem was the dropping of the abrupt onset.  I think what I put up is "more" correct.  While what was there before was true of the prior position.  I agree that citing the web site is a bit dangerous -- which is why I went for Pichechero which is a neutral and balanced review impartial between those running experiments.  I'll continue to think about how to address this "moving" goal post element.  I'm not sure whether it is "moving" or whether it is improved clarity.  The reality is this happens in research so we seem to need to track. I think Pichechero is the right way to balance. Buster23 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we're done with this section; any objection to archiving it? Again, when we get into a complete re-write, we need to take care to use published journal sources, avoiding the NIH website unless absolutely necessary, because their definition of the PANDAS criteria is a moving target-- linking to the current page doesn't give the same thing as linking to the page when PANDAS was proposed or as the research unfolded. We have multiple secondary reviews that list what the PANDAS criteria was, so we needn't link to a moving target. Any objection to archiving this section? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please hold on archiving this section for now. We have agreement on PANDAS criteria in this version -- right? Buster23 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NO problem. But for the record, we don't really have agreement :)  When I realized the NIH had changed their definition (of PANDAS, not referring to new PANS), I saw that we really shouldn't be linking to them at all.  The definition of the criteria is stated in so many secondary reviews that we need not link to a website that changes.  It will be hard to follow the research if every time the NIH changes it's website, we have to explain why their definition differs from the secondary sources, and all of the secondary sources use the original definition-- we can source the criteria to any one of them. We know what the criteria were, so let's source it to the multitude of reviews that state it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay if we reference 2009-2012 reviews that also leverage the 2004 correction to the critiera (such as Pichichero that we agreed on). Focusing on only the 1998 criteria (that had a publisher errata) is really inappropriate and creates a decided POV of ignoring a decade's worth of research.  This would be like someone quoting that SC was due to stress and ignoring the epidemiology studies. So are you still objecting to the current criteria on PANDAS?  I thought that was closed (especially if you wanted to archive content). Buster23 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not intentionally repeating myself or trying to be obtuse, but as I've said several times, other than removing the primary source on overdiagnosis, I am trying my hardest to stay focused on gathering sources rather than editing text, so we can both work smarter, not necessarily faster. I don't believe any other approach is productive, and on difficult and hotly contested topics, working in sandbox is often helpful.  As I've said several times, I haven't reviewed your text additions yet, I am not commenting on those until we both have access to all sources and can work together, based on the same sources.  In other words, I don't know if the criteria are now listed correctly, as sourced to multiple secondary reviews, because I haven't looked yet.  I can only do so much at once :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

PANDAS criteria source
I've been going down the list looking for the most recent, freely avialable secondary source that lists the PANDAS criteria. We are currently sourcing it to Pichichero, which is not freely available, and the NIH, which is a website that constantly changes. These appear to be the most recent freely available sources that list the criteria:
 * PMC2662563 Kalra Swedo
 * Five clinical features:
 * the presence of OCD and/or a tic disorder;
 * prepubertal symptom onset;
 * abrupt onset or exacerbation of symptoms with an episodic (relapsing-remitting) course;
 * temporal association between presence of symptoms and infection with GABHS; and
 * associated neurological abnormalities, including choreiform movements.


 * Lombroso Scahill
 * Five diagnostic criteria were proposed for PANDAS:
 * the presence of a tic disorder and/or OCD consistent with DSM-IV;
 * prepubertal onset of neuropsychiatric symptoms;
 * a history of a sudden onset of symptoms and/or an episodic course with abrupt symptom exacerbation interspersed with periods of partial or complete remission;
 * evidence of a temporal association between onset or exacerbation of symptoms and a prior streptococcal infection; and
 * adventitious movements (e.g., motoric hyperactivity and choreiform movements) during symptom exacerbation.


 * Both of the above are consistent with the long-standing definition that was on the NIH website, before recent changes:
 * They are:
 * Presence of Obsessive-compulsive disorder and/or a tic disorder
 * Pediatric onset of symptoms (age 3 years to puberty)
 * Episodic course of symptom severity
 * Association with group A Beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection (a positive throat culture for strep. or history of Scarlet Fever.)
 * Association with neurological abnormalities (motoric hyperactivity, or adventitious movements, such as choreiform movements)

There are others, but I suggest we choose one that is 1) recent, 2) review, 3) not a website to source the criteria. These two work, and I don't believe it's helpful to link to a website that changes, which obscures the context of the previous studies done based on this criteria.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought we closed this already at . None the less, I can support using Lombroso. I have a slight preference for Pichichero, but Lombroso is okay too. Buster23 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Archive?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird thought, and totally original research, but, huh
I've now spent a good part of the evening re-reading 72 papers and ran into the oddest observation. All the papers that were "PRO" were written by women (with some men) and the ones that were "CON" were by men. Okay, that's silly... I then realized that the "PRO" were primarily clinicians or psychiatrists and the "CON" were primarily neurologists. I then found a 1998 survey that there were only 19% women in neurology and 67% of psychiatrists are women. Wonder why women don't go into neurology. This clearly doesn't influence the article, but gave me pause this evening.Buster23 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed this earlier. Interesting but not sure it's right (small sample) ... for example, Leckman is a psychiatrist (and on my N=1 sample, I used a female neurologist).  We might avoid classifying folks studying the problem of autoimmunology in movement disorders and OCD as "pro" or "con"; they are all researchers who generally want to do their best for the affected children, recognize something is happening even where they don't agree that the PANDAS hypothesis described it, they are all trying to get to the bottom of a problem, a very big problem that is hard to define, even harder to study, and each of them has contributed different pieces to unraveling the mystery-- one which remains elusive at the 15-year mark.  Even where they disagree, it's usually only because the hypothesis as originally formulated was hard to study and pin down.   Swerdlow, in his journal paper as the outgoing chair of the Tourette Syndrome Association Medical Advisory Board, described well the desperation this hypothesis has engendered among Internet-armed parents of children with tics:


 * Hard to study, and even harder to write about on Wikipedia, especially considering the moving target. Perhaps viewing it from that perspective will help us advance, by focusing on the sources, leaving aside opinions (like whether someone knows what a hypothesis is :), working one step at a time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen you refer to this quote before. There's a good part to it and a bad part to it. People tend to think that Strep Throat is no big deal. It is a big deal.  Yet the majority of pediatricians won't simply do a throat culture.  The worry here is about finding a carrier - which is a bit nuts and I have excellent work here from Kaplan on that, but I digress.

Interesting followup on your observation in the Psychiatric Times, "PANDAS: Nonexistent or Simply Rare?" (which also explains some of the other issues, specifically, neurologists more likely to see tics, psychiatrists more likely to see OCD, and many of the problems with the PANDAS hypothesis were specific to the alleged relationship to tics, which has not coincidentally been changed with the new proposal, PANS). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, PANS does help restrict the presentation for research purposes to ensure that different researchers are looking at a homogenous group of kids. But this is to establish whether this set of children have common triggers so that epidemeologic studies can be accomplished like was done in the excellent article by martino .  If you have different kids, you can't claim anything.  This is the critical element of the note in the PANS paper that
 * Buster23 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Ten-fold increase"
Pichichero mentions in one place, Table 2, a "10-fold increase in kids with tics". Considering the single sample from one practice, the wording of this source seems more appropriate:

"Kiessling and colleagues (1993)[19] noticed an increase in tic disorders in a pediatric clinic after a wave of streptococcal infections swept through Providence, Rhodes (sic) Island." Source 19 is: Lombroso and Scahill didn't quantify it to "10-fold", likely because of a multitude of other factors whose discussion is beyond the scope here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * MPC2291145, Lombroso and Scahill
 * I've now found the text from Pichichero upon which the Table was based"In 1993, a group working at a neurodevelopmental assessment clinic in Rhode Island noted a temporal relationship between a surge in GAS infections and a surge in the number of children presenting to their clinic with new onset of tics."
 * So, yes, although unanswered above, this is based on Kiessling (which was, I believe 33 children, but need to check). When we get to writing the History section, IMO the text in both sources is more helpful to our reader than just stating a "10-fold increase". A 10-fold increase in a small regional clinic is quite different, for example, than a 10-fold increase at a large tertiary specialty clinic like the Yale Child Study Center, which would be quite something!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a second review. From "In the 1980s, an outbreak of streptococcal tonsillitis in Rhode Island, USA, was associated with a ten-fold increase in the incidence of motor tics (without chorea) in the region.17 The concept of post-streptococcal tics was born. Subsequently, further patients have been described.9,18 The patients often had an abrupt onset (often overnight) of tics (and/or obsessive–compulsive disorder), and had exacerbations after further streptococcal infections.18,19"
 * I'd say that Pichichero and Dale both found the increase remarkable. Buster23 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, that settles that. Good to archive this?  By the way, archiving doesn't mean it goes away forever as you seem to imply in other sections.  You can easily reference something in the archives-- it just means we've come to a conclusion on this so it no longer needs to take up space on a very long talk page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Evidence linking"
"Although there is evidence linking infection and onset in some OCD/tic cases, proving a true causal relationship has remained elusive.[5][6]" This text was added sourced to Shulman,  and Maia,. Almost every source without exception goes into a good amount of detail about evidence "supportive" of the hypothesis, and evidence that does not support the hypothesis. Almost every source without exception concludes that the hypothesis remains unproven. This sentence not only biases the lead, but I question the wording "linking infection". First, supportive evidence in favor of the hypothesis is not the same as linking. Second, many sources suggest that some infectious process may be involved, but PANDAS may still be incorrectly formulated (wrt GABHS), so the wording "infection" is vague and unclear here. Please provide the exact text from the sources upon which this statement in the lead is based. Also, unless "true" is in the source, it is redundant peacockery. I have now read almost every source, and they all mention supportive and unsupportive evidence-- no "link". Please put exact quotes here on talk that are used to develop this text. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, found almost the exact wording in Murphy, Kurlan and Leckman "Although there are several lines of evidence linking GAS infection and onset of some OCD/tic cases, establishing a true etiological relationship has proven challenging." so now we have a close paraphrasing problem. We still have the vagueness issue-- does this sentence mean infection or GAS infection?  Important distinction, since multiple infectious processes are hypothesized to impact symptom exacerbation in TS/OCD.  Although the source uses it, I still suggest that "true" is redundant, and "supportive" is more often used in the literature than "linking", but this text is sourceable to at least Murphy, Kurlan and Leckman, although may need paraphrasing.  How did we end up with text almost verbatim from Murphy sourced to Maia and Shulman? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased to remove plagiarism, but am concerned that we need to check the rest of the text now. (Naturally, I rephrased with a typo!)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reread, but how are those two quotes similar -- you cited plagiarism, but the one above does not look to me like plagiarism. I'll have to read how you rephrased.  Looks like you've been busy. Buster23 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two problems. First, the text was sourced to Shulman,  and Maia,  but it comes from Murphy, Kurlan and Leckman . Here is the text added:"although there is evidence linking infection and onset in some OCD/tic cases, proving a true causal relationship has remained elusive and controversial." and here is the source wording:"Although there are several lines of evidence linking GAS infection and onset of some OCD/tic cases, establishing a true etiological relationship has proven challenging."  I've rephrased it now, so moot, but one thing that sometimes happens when writing articles where all of the sources essentially say the same thing is that we can inadvertently use phrases we saw elsewhere in other sources.  See WP:PARAPHRASE. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Settled? Good to archive? Sandy Georgia (Talk)
 * Yes for now. I think we'll be back here later on other topics. Buster23 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Waiting till you are done
Hi Sandy, I should have marked article as inuse. I was working on it when you started undoing my work. Perhaps you didn't notice that only 2 min elapsed. I'll wait until you are done. You undid my edits that were correct and referenced. PANS is not a hypothesis. It is a term. Similarly PANDAS is not a hypothesis. It is a research criteria. The hypothesis is that the symptoms of children who meet the criteria in PANDAS are caused by antibodies to GABHS infection. Similarly, PANS is not a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that children who meet the PANS criteria have an etiology distinct from childhood onset OCD. Rather than get overlapped, I'll wait until you are done and then perhaps we can discuss. Buster23 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I returned for the evening and thought I could get a few things done quickly tonight, but the problems now are bigger than I thought, and I didn't realize you were still working. BTW, my very first edit was only intended to put the article in use, but undid some of yours that I didn't intend-- I can't figure out how that happened except by a strange edit conflict that sometimes happens.  Although after reviewing it, many of your changes to the lead are causing problems that I can't fix tonight as quickly as I thought I could; could you please have a look at WP:LEAD? The lead should be a summary, not try to do too much, not introduce complex concepts, and certainly it shouldn't be introducing POV.  A lot of what you've put there might work better in the body of the article (and should be written neutrally, covering both sides of the debate).  I'll work on it another day. BTW, I carefully brought over and merged text from PANS after waiting quite a while for you to comment, agree or disagree over there.  I worked slowly intentionally so that if you disagreed with something, you could discuss and collaborate before changing text. This is a frustrating way to work.  There is now some POV introduced; perhaps before you continue working you could review NPOV; even if you disagree with the secondary sources that discuss the problems with the PANDAS hypothesis, one way to assure you write neutrally is to think of it as "writing for the enemy". It's a much faster way to get the job done.  Also, my first edit removed one of your tags inadvertently, so I restored it and will check that source another day. More later,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, better placed in the body of the article under History:"A ten-fold increase in tic disorders during an outbreak of strep throat in Rhode Island prompted the researchers to focus on Group A Beta-hemolytic streptococcal infections (strep throat)." and please quote here on talk the exact text from the source that this statement is based on, because it seems dubious.  Also, this text leads the reader (POV), and is territory that can be more thoroughly explored in the body of the article:"The attractiveness of the hypothesis is that if true, new avenues of treatment and prevention might be available;[4] however, although there is evidence linking infection and onset in some OCD/tic cases, proving a true causal relationship has remained elusive and controversial.[3][5]"  Also, "however" is overused and "in some cases" is misleading (it's not "some cases"-- it's some research agrees, some disagrees), so there are multiple issues introduced in the lead.  Please provide a quote here on talk of the exact text in the source that you are using to develop this text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree I over-used "however" and was working on that sentence.
 * On the sentence "a ten-fold increase" please look at Pichechero reference Table 2 where it states:
 * 1998: Sue Swedo describes high prevalence of OCDin kids with Sydenham’s chorea
 * 1992: Swedo presents an abstract atAmSoc Psychiatry meetings linking OCD, tics,and GAS.
 * 1993: Outbreak of GAS tonsillitis in Rhode Island associated with 10-fold increase in kids with tics—concept of poststrep tics is born.
 * 1994: Swedo links Sydenham’s to autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders (OCD, tics).
 * 1997: Swedo describes the first 50 cases of a new syndrome she calls PANDAS.


 * This was referenced in my edit.
 * Finally, I think what I was writing was in a neutral point of view. I see that you are objecting, but that might be that the current article is quite biased in a particular direction.  The article seems to fail to represent the viewpont that there is strong evidence that GABHS infections trigger OCD and tic exacerbations. You can argue whether you agree with that position, but certainly the review articles we are using highlight that such evidence is there but that the evidence is still insufficient to prove causality (a very high bar).  For example, Sydenham Chorea is still not proven to be caused by GABHS -- although it is certainly the concensus that this is true.Buster23 (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quoted text from the source. I don't have time to cover much more tonight (I would better have not started tonight since there is more to do than I thought).  On the ten-fold increase, if one sentence in a chart is all we have, I believe including that is WP:UNDUE.  I have never seen that stat anywhere else (have you?), and there is good reason to question it.  The problem is that 1993 was about the time people were becoming more aware of TS and tics, diagnoses in general were increasing, so we don't know all that increase (or any of it) is due to strep.  Unless you have seen any mention or discussion of that statistic anywhere else, I don't think picking one line out of a table is due weight, and it is misleading (what does Pichichero source that to, and how strong is the evidence, and is it mentioned anywhere else?).  Of course you may include that some studies show strong evidence if you equally mention that other studies fail to support the hypothesis.  I'm concerned that you may think it's OK for you to present one side of the story, and wait for me to present the other; that's not the way we build articles on Wikipedia.  We access the best secondary reviews, come to consensus about which to use, and then present the whole story, pro and con, according to secondary reviews (which is exactly what the best ones do).  I'm finding it a lot of work to get you to recognize and include all sides of the story, and write about it.  The current article is incomplete and has never been written because every time I try, I encounter problems like this and give up.  We don't build a neutral article by adding in pro and con POVs; we build a neutral article by writing the whole thing correctly, from the best secondary sources, not neglecting any POV (and the best sources don't).  When writing X, don't forget to include the Not X; otherwise, the article becomes POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I am trying to write a neutral article. I have reviewed NPOV several times and do not think the current article satisfies this. I've also been reviewing WP:OWN. We could recruit a 3rd party to read the article and see if they feel it is neutral or they are being pursuaded of a point of view.  I'm really glad you are using the correct statements of experiments supporting and failing to support the hypothesis.  It is remarkable how many have misinterpreted such experiments as refuting.  Clearly you know better, but the article needs to be equally clear.
 * Here are two points of views supported by the literture:
 * Children who fit the relapsing/remitting PANDAS criteria have symptom exacerbations when exposed to GABHS (only colonization is necessary)
 * Children who fit a wax/wane version of the PANDAS criteria but also have established Tourettes Syndrome (greater than +3 years of symptoms) do not exhibit significant tic or OCD exacerbations coincident with GABHS infections.
 * I know of no "CON" papers that addressed onset of symptoms. I know of no "PRO" papers that address children with 3 years of Tourettes. The key policy I'm following is that all significant positions need to be represented. That is not the case in the current article. I agree with you that it needs rewriting.  This is quite difficult because there tends to be an objection to every edit. Buster23 (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend the current article is well written: it never was to begin with, and I've neglected it for three years due to a lengthy relocation. Each time we have gotten external eyes on it, no matter how hard they've tried, the topic is beyond the understanding even of most medical editors, and they do their best, but ... anyway.  Thank you for letting me know your timing (below) so I can try to avoid edit conflicts, but on such a complex and contentious topic, the article could advance more quickly, and our time will be better spent if we discuss before editing, not after.  I thought the text at PANS was settled, based on discussion, waited several days for it to be settled, didn't always get answers from you, but came in tonight to find it juggled to something that doesn't work because it neglects to mention how tentative the proposal is and it's a working hypothesis for research purposes so that a lot of what some think we know about abrupt onset can finally be adequately studied.  It's frustrating to find that text removed after discussing and waiting several days to nail it down, and when it specifically comes from the only source on the topic. It would help on such a difficult and contested topic if we discussed proposed text before it was added; the lead right now is out of whack.  Getting extra eyes on this topic isn't going to be a great help to either of us, because so few understand it-- for us to collaborate as closely as we can is the best way forward. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think we're going to need a neutral 3rd party who can help break an impasse. This person would hopefully be someone who can do verification and determine if certain wikipedia guidelines are being violated or misinterpreted and calm heated discussion.  It takes a lot of energy to keep up with you, as you probably know. Buster23 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem I was trying to fix tonight until I realized there were more problems is that your edits are removing the wording that PANS is for research purposes, a working proposal, very tentative-- I quoted that text over at the talk page of PANS, and presenting this hypothesis as more than what it is is not neutral. The source is very clear that this is a working hypothesis, intended to define a subset of children so the hypothesis can be studied; we can't water that down. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the phrasing as you have to say what the hypothesis is. Please take a moment to write down the hypothesis. When you get a chance.
 * As a reminder, I will only edit each evening. Due to my work it will almost always take me 24-48 hours to respond to your posts. Buster23 (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I never got an answer on Kiessling, so found it myself. See Talk:PANDAS/Archive_3 for continued discussion below of the "10-fold increase". Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did answer on that thread. Buster23 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to know if it was Kiessling; found that myself, addressed now, so moot. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe everything in this section is addressed ... archive? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Current references
I was going through the references and seeing whether they met MEDRS. I'd be interested in the opinions of the other editors whether we should remove primary, news stories, websites and unreviewed commentaries. The exception might be landmark papers (if also cited by secondary review) and the NIMH website (as this seems to be a reasonable place to point folks -- although that could be done through external links). We might also not be able to find a good review for PANS yet per discussion on [pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome] and might have to use the primary reference here. There really shouldn't be any reason to cite primary papers at this point, right?. In addition, we are referencing some pretty early reviews before the analysis of the 2008 and 2010 longitudinal studies. Seems using reviews post 2009 would be wise if possible.

Discussion of sources

 * We need to do some of this and more actually ... the article has now become POV by failing to account for multiple secondary reviews. Over the next few days, I will present a similar summary of reviews that are not represented here (or are under-represented), leading to POV.  I think if we can come to consensus on sources first, we will find ourselves less often getting crossways on the text.  A careful look at the NIH page on PANDAS has led me to realize we really shouldn't be using it more than necessary, as they are not third-party in this matter, and the presentation on their website is quite biased (by what is not included).  I think all three that you've listed under websites should be replaced (and they can be, I'll seek out review sources to replace them, but that includes NIH, whose presentation is biased). Other than that, anything that is a primary source is by now well mentioned in numerous reviews, and my concern here is that a good deal of what is in reviews is simply not here, while the NIH view is approaching an imbalance. If you can give me a day or two, I'll review your list as well as presenting mine of secondary reviews that we need to account for, and between the two of us we can see who has access to those reviews. Also, remember, the use of a source is dependent on the text being sourced (that is, until a review article become available, it is OK to use the new Swedo/Leckman paper presenting the new PANS proposal to describe what the new proposal is).  Also, Maia is a review, not sure why you've marked it with question?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I too agree about common reviews. Let's make our list again. I'll provide a set of reviews as well and we can compare notes.  I've noticed that when new text comes in from others on the article you have flagged them as MEDRS and then deleted the text and the citation stating that we have multiple reviews and don't need primary.  It seems we need to follow that same principle here and flag all the commentaries and primaries as not following MEDRS and then go back and fix those. In addition, Singer is definitely getting undo weight here given the numerous reviews.  What we might want to use is an independent like Pichichero who is neither Swedo nor Singer nor Kurlan.  I'm also supportive of using Leckman who seems quite independent.  Perhaps the most important single item is that Singer, Leckman and Kurlan never studied onset and say so in all their papers. They were studying Tourettes. This is highlighted in the PANS paper and agreed to by Singer/Kurlan. Buster23 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I marked a few that you have misflagged, but that's all I have time for today (I thought you edited in the evening ? :) :)   I will get on this as soon as I've finished some prep work for my taxes.  Yes, as I've said multiple times, this article has never been in good shape-- all I've been able to do is keep it from getting worse, which shouldn't imply an endorsement of what's here.  They were studying Tourettes; you say that like it's a small thing :)  That is precisely where PANDAS ran into trouble, and just because they've now changed to a PANS hypothesis that downplays the Tourettes issues doesn't mean we ignore what went on for 15 years or leave out the problems with the TS portion of the PANDAS hypothesis.  It wasn't an insignificant issue, and we have quite a few secondary sources on it that are not included here, so no, I don't agree that we have undue weight here on Singer (there's also Kurlan, Yale, and pretty much every private research group that looked at the issue wrt tics and TS)-- if there'a an appearance of imbalance in the current text, it's because we just don't yet have enough complementary information in the article, but relative to what is available in secondary sources, no, we aren't unbalanced.  See WP:DUE for how Wikipedia defines due weight-- the problem here is we have an incomplete article.  You've asked me on your talk to give you time because you normally edit at night-- now I need a few days to put together a source list as well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not okay with Kurlan2004 particularly as it was responded to with the Fact and Fiction commentary and then numerous reviews (including Pichichero) who positioned it as one sided. It would be incredibly difficult to position Kurlan2004 as neutral.  I am not underplaying Tourettes, just saying that there appears to be a very strong difference between studying long term tic disorders and studying onset.  I agree with you, but the current article does not even mention this difference between one group studying onset and treatment and another group studying causality.  We have a nice list of reviews from the work we did 3 years ago on this, seems we need to add the more recent review articles.  I looked again at Kurlan2004 and it is not marked as a review by PubMed.  I most certainly have read it, but have also read the rebuttal and the reviews about Kurlan2004.  I do not consider Kurlan2004 to be neutral or balanced.  (had 5 minutes to day to check in -- I'll be back on tonight) Buster23 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding WP:V; we can come to consensus about which reviews we prefer, but one individual can't decide to exclude a source that meets WP:MEDRS because s/he considers it "biased" (which I don't, btw). We represent all credible mainstream views, per WP:NPOV (and Kurlan's paper represents majority thinking among TS researchers-- by no means is it anything other than mainstream).  We do get to exclude unreviewed sources that are biased, like the NIH's website, specifically when they don't conform with WP:MEDRS, or because they are not third party (Swedo originated the hypothesis), or at most, we use such sources in a limited way that is supported by policy and consensus.  (As of now I can't think of any reason to use the NIH website since 1) they keep changing it, and 2) the definitions are available in independent sources).   That the PANDAS hypothesis was unsupported as originally proposed, specifically wrt Tourette's, is not something we get to ignore just because the NIH has now come up with an alternate proposal:  children with tics who were treated incorrectly don't just disappear because criteria is redefined.  That is not to say we may end up using Kurlan-- that depends on what else we have-- but that the text is freely available makes it one we may end up using.  And PubMed doesn't mark all reviews as reviews-- that's a known issue.  If there's a rebuttal, it can also be reflected.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think I'm misunderstanding WP:V at all. Just that if the review is challenged, we don't have to stick with it but should rather use a more recent review that has commented on both the review and the challenge to the review. I'm saying there is no reason to use the 2004 paper given the much more recent reviews that balance the two viewpoints and use more recent information to inform their review.  The article was highly criticized (not saying wrong with what was known) but unless the response is also addressed, then the single review that has been criticized would be giving undue weight. So, I'm recommending reviews from 2009 onward.  Is there a value in that review that is largely unavailable that you think merits inclusion over the extensive more recent reviews that are better informed? Buster23 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We still aren't understanding each other. I don't know if we will end up using Kurlan or not-- I'm discussing the principle.
 * PANDAS is contentious. PANDAS is hotly-debated.  PANDAS is contested.  PANDAS is controversial.  PANDAS remains unproven.  Etc.  You can find similar wording in every review.  That means that almost everything written by anyone is contested by someone else.  That's how the scientific process works.  If we disallowed Kurlan because Swedo disagrees with him, then we'd disallow Swedo because scores of researchers disagree with her. The article was highly criticized?  Everything about the hypothesis, on all sides, is highly criticized.  We present views, attributed to each.  We don't take sides.
 * WP:V, WP:DUE, we don't disallow a source that meets WP:MEDRS because our personal biases may lead us to disagree with it. We present all credible, mainstream views.
 * Again, I'm not saying that means we'll use Kurlan if we have something newer, better, but the problem with some of the newer articles is that, as the problems with the hypothesis became well documented, the newer reviews didn't repeat that text, rather referenced the older papers which discussed the many problems, so sometimes it may be necessary to go back to older papers for context. We'll see as we being writing, but where there is disagreement, we give each author's opinion, with attribution (Kurlan said X; Swedo replied with Y).
 * The way forward on such a hotly contested and difficult topic is to work slowly, propose text on talk, gain consensus for each text addition. As of now, we have some POV text in the lead.  I'd hope to not have to tag the article as POV.  I've begun to gather my sources (which were in boxes for three years), and will next try to replace the source on over-diagnosis.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I offer this in mild jest, but am sort of serious too. Would you consider taking a break from the article for a while and letting me edit for a while and then see what the result is -- then check whether it is neutral or not.  It is practically impossible to edit this thing because I'm fighting with you on every single word (e.g., the fight on "term", "hypothesis", "criteria").  You've said multiple times the article needs a complete rewrite -- I most certainly agree, but in the 3 years since I last tried to edit this, nothing has happened to the article. So, would you consider taking a break for a bit on it?  Buster23 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, your last set of edits have left some POV in the text (which I've not yet tagged, hoping you would remove it), and yes, it is a very contentious topic (I wouldn't phrase that as "fighting someone every step of the way") that warrants very careful editing. Discussing how to represent sources need not be viewed as "fighting" (see WP:BATTLEGROUND); it's not an easy topic, and unfortunately for you, it's the only area you've edited on Wikipedia. I know you must be frustrated that your edits aren't universally meeting with success, but discussion is the way to come to agreement, and is better than edit warring.  As I've told you several times, nothing happened in that three years because I moved twice precisely during that time.  I've recently resigned as FAC delegate to devote more of my editing time to medical articles (e.g., this one). The fastest way forward, considering the difficulties here, is for us to agree to work in sandbox, re-building the article from the ground up.  I don't want to have to tag the article as POV, but neither do I want to remove text to the extent of engaging in an edit war.  I'm also waiting to get my hands on sources I'm missing.  No, since there are only two of us working on this article for now, I don't think that asking one of us to refrain is the best route to a neutral article.  Would you be willing to build the article from scratch, in sandbox, together?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I think the current article has distinct point of view that is easily tested by just reversing the order of phrases. You have fought to keep text that I find objectionable for reasons cited here on talk.  You've also asked me to discuss any changes here before making changes (but seem to want me to fix things in the article). Which is it?  I'm happy to edit the article but am still trying to get you to agree that PANS isn't a hypothesis, it is a research criteria.  This is easily demonstrated.  If I can't even get a word change, how are we going to edit this article?  Help me not see this as WP:OWN.  Buster23 (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You say:  You have fought to keep text that I find objectionable for reasons cited here on talk. For example? I strive to make sure the article reflects what the highest quality reliable sources say, and they generally all say the same thing.  You have multiple times charged me with article ownership; personalizing issues here will be less helpful in the long run than focusing on what the sources say. As to the overall approach to the article, you have multiple times declined to answer my request that we work together in sandbox, so I will continue ... what I'm focusing on so far is eliminating the primary sources in the article.  That does not mean I'm yet fully into expansion mode; there is still a great deal to be written.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until you are done. The text regarding desparate parents is given undue weight.  You add the title of the individual to the quote. It is really unnecessary and inflammatory and is not a concensus position. It creates bias to the article.  I do not seem to have Swerdlow so cannot read the entire paper. I will start looking for that paper. You marked it as a review, but it is marked as a research support document by PubMed. Buster23 (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait until I'm done what? I've removed all the primary sources that I'm able to for now (once we start expanding and writing for real, there will likely be changes, there's one Scahill source I couldn't quickly/easily deal with).  You haven't answered the questions about undue weight posed throughout the page, and tagging a page as POV without good cause is disruptive and tendentious.  WP:MEDMOS calls for a Society and culture section.  We have two or three mentions at best of how PANDAS impacts and is impacted by society.  The Swerdlow quote is expanded and reinforced by the Murphy 2010 source, and both are backed by the Gabbay, Coffey study, which is discussed at length in Shulman 2009, which you say you've read.  I don't know what you mean by "it's not a consensus position"-- it certainly is, whatever that means (see WP:NPOV-- even if weren't a "consensus position", we represent all reliable views).  If your concern is that I stated who Swerdlow is, that description can be removed.  Could you please give a source that contradicts this view from Swerdlow (San Diego) and from the Yale folks, and from the Rochester folks, and from the NYU group?   That's a whole lotta people to claim it's an insignificant or inflammatory view that doesn't enjoy consensus among numerous different groups of researchers.  You are aware, I hope, that not all reviews are marked as reviews by PubMed?  If it's not a review, what is it?  I see you call some articles "editorials" because they aren't marked as reviews.  Then what is Swedo, Leckman, Rose 2012 in your opinion, and why are you OK with it?  What's the difference?  What's the difference between Swedo's paper on PANS, and Singer's on CANS (besides that you agree with PANS and disagree with CANS)?  And I hope you're also aware that the standard for high-quality sourcing on a statement about a societal issue is not typically the same requirement for a secondary review.  Swerdlow is most certainly fit, in his position as chair of the TSA MAB, to comment on the way the Internet impacted the PANDAS controversy.  Frankly, I'm surprised you weren't aware of that issue, which was quite substantial, as mentioned by Murphy, Kurlan and Leckman. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the attribution as if the opinion is backed by the organization helps. Removing the quote and instead focusing on the issue about the Internet is better (as the statement about "desparate parents" is not repeated in the citations you have provided).  I have, again, no difficulty with highlighting that commentaries and editorials are inflamming this topic without the science needed to make definitive choices.  Every article argues for continued research. The wikipedia page is not the space to give undue weight to an opinion about parents.  If this remains a sticking point and you think this is a necessary quote, I'd like to understand why.  There are plenty of reviews, as you point out, about the issue with the internet.  Instead of using those more balanced reviews, you've decided to us an inflammatory quote.  Can you use text from another review or are you stuck on this quote? I'll delay responding to the CANS v PANS discussion for now.  I thought we resolved that PANS would be merged with this article, but it sounds like you want to reopen that debate. On the "waiting", I'm waiting until you feel you are at a stable point on the article so that I can read it in total and look at flow. The lead isn't fully supported by the body today.  I disagree with the balance in the body. The research on the microbiology and immunology is very lightly touched.  The discussion about the Perlmutter study is not balanced especially as there are no contrary studies and a current clinical study. So, let me know when you aren't making 10 or more edits and think the article can be reviewed in its new state.  It's hard to have two simultaneous editors or for me to be commenting on the partial edits. Buster23 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Overdiagnosis
Review sources to complement the MedScape article on overdiagnosis: I need to get both articles. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shulman 2009 mentions both underdiagnosis and "substantial" overdiagnosis
 * Shulman 2009 mentions both underdiagnosis and "substantial" overdiagnosis


 * The Gabbay Coffey study is discussed in several recent reviews. I don't yet have all of these reviews, so I used Shulman 2009 to update this primary source.  I don't yet have the full text of Shulman, so I haven't expanded further, but I note that anyone having this review could have done this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also mentioned in Leckman 2010, so I added that, but I don't yet have the Shulman article to expand further. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I now have the Shulman article, which is quite comprehensive on the overdiagnosis issue. Buster23, I believe you have this source, and have for quite some time, no?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I have Shulman 2009 "Thus, there was substantial overdiagnosis as well as underdiagnosis of this disorder by the community physicians."
 * Probably the balance is highlighted that a positive throat culture should be treated per AMA recommendation.  SC and PANDAS are thought to be sequela to untreated streptococcal infection.  Buster23 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done ?
As of this version, I believe with the exception of cleaning up the jumble in "Identification" to reference one good online version of the PANDAS criteria, I've now removed all primary sources and older reviews, upgrading everything to recent reviews, striving to use first those freely available. Please check. This does not mean I've simultaneously expanded text per those reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interest of readability, would you (Buster23) mind if the source list above is now collapsed? That doesn't mean it goes away; it just shortens the size of the page we have to read. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done yet. I need to now go through and verify the quotes attributed. Buster23 (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Long term tics versus onset
My question above was lost in the debate about Kurlan2004. What I think we need to flag in the article is that one group has been studying onset and OCD exacerbations and another group has been studying long term tic disorders. This is stated in the PANS paper and reviewed by each of the parties and agreed to in each of the papers. This difference in subject selection is not reflected in the current paper. Before pushing on this more, I want to check that the other editors see this in the reviews. Prior to 2009, another editor flagged this as WP:Synthesis and WP:OR and given the consensus position now in reviews (and in both the longitudinal studies) want to check before putting it up there since perhaps other editors haven't read the papers since 2009. Buster23 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of your questions seem to be verring more into opinion, or else I'm not understanding where we're not understanding each other, so I've prepared a chart of all of our sources that we can work from and begin to address text based on exactly what the sources say. For example, per the question above on the "PANDAS hypothesis", reviewing all of the sources will show how often it is referred to as a hypothesis.  Perhaps referencing the wording of the sources, where it is specificially referred to as a hypothesis, will help clear up the earlier questions. The sources are in a separate page so that we can work on, expand, etc.  Chart may not be finished-- is only what I have so far, please check.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is likely you aren't understanding my point. Here's the text
 * In contrast, studies that adhered closely to the PANDAS diagnostic criteria produced positive data and were seen as supporting a role for GAS in the etiology of neuropsychiatric symptoms (reviewed by Murphy, Kurlan and Leckman[37]). This matches the statements in all the longitudinal studies that:
 * It is important to note that our study did not address a potential association between GABHS infection and onset of symptoms, an important aspect of the PANDAS hypothesis, but we only addressed subsequent clinical exacerbations. I can go on, but perhaps this makes the point. Buster23 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what the studies say: the problems come in to the article when incorrect conclusions (synthesis) are drawn from individual interpretations of that text. You are focusing on the problems with etiology; there were many problems with the hypothesis, making it difficult to study.  That there is support for a role of GABHS in the etiology is not an endorsement of the hypothesis.  Again, the way forward is to propose text additions on talk for review.  Perhaps now that we have nailed down the source list (I need a day or two to gather some sources I've lost), we should turn our attention to re-building the entire aricle from scratch, in sandbox, where we can agree as we work, rather than getting into edit wars.  Again, I'm concerned about the POV that is now in the lead.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if we're going to use Kurlan2004, then we have to use Swedo2004 that was published in same issue. I highly recommend against using either and instead recommend we stick with our agreement from 2009 to use the neutral review by Pichichero2008 .  If the views aren't repeated, it could be for all sorts of reasons. 9 years of research is a good amount of time to add new thoughts and reflect on comments.  For example, I'm not seeing any of Hornig's or Yaddanapudi's work yet outside of Leckman's comments.  That's nice work too. Buster23 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not said we're going to use Kurlan 2004, but if we do use it, I know how to use it correctly :) Should we encounter any text that forces us to consider older sources, we will discuss them before doing so.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

PANDAS sources
For anything older than 2008, I only listed those that are either freely available or one of us has the full text of the article. Buster23, on any that aren't freely available, could you indicate if you have access to or copies of any of them? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have marked the articles. I didn't mark the freely available ones as we both have those. Buster23 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost there-- I hope we've now got a good starting place for discussing text based on sources. I listed one book that fills in some missing pieces of History wrt Sydenham's and GABHS (although it was written only shortly after the PANDAS hypothesis was put forward, so it doesn't go into detail on PANDAS per se).  After two moves, I haven't found all my papers yet, so am going to order some new.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you had added some commentary to the chart (pointing out which sources you disagreed on using); please keep that commentary here on talk, so that the chart can remain neutral and descriptive (it will outlast us, and keeping it neutral will allow new readers to the page to come to their own conclusions). Why do you dislike the anorexia review by Puxley et al (2008)? I've not seen it yet. I also removed your indication that ALL have freely available sources, since that is a given (links are listed), and it made the chart more cluttered. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree the table will live on. Therefore I think comments regarding the articles (are they reviews or are they commentaries or have they been rebutted or are they case studies) should remain.  Assuming good faith I'll state again my recommendation to use Pichichero2008 that is newer, refers to both Kulan2004 and Swedo2004 rather than relying on a review that is disputed in the same issue as it is published.  Puxley is case analysis and not a review. I've added a more recent 2010 review instead of the case study of Puxley. Buster23 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to the table to add a partial title. It made it easier to cross check and reference. Buster23 (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I see my intent to create a brief reference list is now gone ... I created the list in my user space as a checklist for us and then moved it to article space: next time I want something brief and easy to access, I'll remember to keep it in my user space :) Since the chart now has lengthy article titles, in the interest of brevity, I removed the brief comments explaining the topic that I had originally added (OCD, TS, SC, etc). I've also corrected some indications of freely available (you might not be aware that Google books is not available worldwide, in some places is not available at all, and in some places is restricted to a few views per IP, so it can never be considered any more than a sometimes convenience link that sometimes works sometimes doesn't-- it is only listed for convenience, but can't be counted on).  Puxley, case report-- I don't know what happened there?  If I added it, it was a typo, and can be deleted, but I need to figure out which article I meant to add.  Unless you added it?  On the broader issue of you wanting to add to the chart your personal opinions about each review, this is intended as a neutral list, without editor opinion, intended to be brief and for reference purposes and for each of us to know who has access to what (if I know you don't have an article, I will post quotes on talk when using that article).  If we start adding editor opinions to the chart, then we need to sign those opinions so others will know whose opinion it is, and then we'll have not a list but a talk page discussion, and the chart will become unusable.  Discussion of those sources are better placed on this page, with signatures, where consensus can be developed, as we get to writing text and if we use the sources.  If you start adding opinions on the source list, they will need to be signed, and the page will become unusable.  Above, you meant Pichichero2009, not 2008. Again, just about everything written on PANDAS has been rebutted somewhere by someone, so that isn't a reason for excluding a source. We attribute text to authors in such cases.  And again again, I'm not saying we'll even use Kurlan2004, but just about everything he wrote about what is wrong with the five criteria is repeated in most TS reviews, so to say we won't use it because it's rebutted isn't entirely relevant (most of what he wrote has been repeated even recently in other reviews).  At any rate, once we begin to add text, at that point we will discuss which sources to use, and it's not necessary to be overconcerned about any given review until we get to the point of figuring out what we're actually going to use.  Just getting the chart of sources in one place has taken most of my editing time for several days.  If you plan to make any more structural changes to the chart, could you please discuss them here, because I'm now finding that for me to have a brief, easy-to-read checklist I may need to recreate that in my userspace.  Perhaps your eyesight is better than mine, and you can more easily sort clutter-- TMI is harder for me to process. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you against having the titles or just the length of some of the titles? I like having the list, but found without the title, I couldn't easily remember which review was which (such as Pichichero2009 vs 2008). I thought of the joke at the joke tellers club where the guy shouts out 297 and no one laughs -- why not, he told it wrong. Buster23 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the length of the titles that make it hard for me to use the page as a checklist, but I can see that the titles are helpful to you, so I've removed my brief summary from the comment section (that list of what each review was about became redundant when you added title), and I put a copy in my own userspace that will serve my checklist purposes (knowing who has what when it comes to writing the article). Should I delete Puxley?  I'm not sure what happened there; I think I pulled up some other review, and then mistyped.  I'm not sure how much more I'll get done today, but I'm still trying!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Puxley should be deleted. I did find the commentary helpful. I found both helpful. Any chance of keeping both? Each has benefit. For example, I was separating those that were primarily about microbiology, from those on SC, from those on clinical presentation.  I'd like to have the commentary back. Buster23 (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted commentary like "TS, OCD, SC, Overview, etc" ... it was just taking space, when that's given now in the article title. I'd rather keep the clutter to a minimum so the chart will be readable, and less likely to overwhelm in the future. I had really hoped to keep this chart simple for future audiences-- how about this for your purposes ... put a copy of the older version with commentary in your own userspace, since you need that commentary, where others may not, and then you can add any notes for your own purposes in your own userspace, as I'm doing in mine. That way, we leave the general version as simple and readable as possible.  If you need help putting the old version with commentary in your userspace, I can do that for you-- the advantage of that is that then you can alter it at will, to whatever suits your needs. Deleting Puxley now; can't figure out what went wrong there, but some review I meant to add went missing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer of help, but no thank you. I will keep out any commentary about the validity of the review.  The only instance I knew there was on the highly contentious Kurlan2004 and Swedo2004 that was addressed by Pichichero.  I don't understand why you wouldn't want that breadcrumb there for other editors since you and I spent a lot of time finding balanced reviews that covered that disagreement.  Finally, tags on OCD, TS, SC, Immunology, seemed helpful to classify the papers. By the way, I'm fine with even more "shortening" of titles. Buster23 (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have Pichichero yet, so I can't add more :) I am still waiting to get the full list of sources, so my commentary has been on the general principles so far.  Now that you've added titles, I don't see how shortening them will help ... I have an idea of how to fix the chart to include what you want, and to make it sortable.  I can add a column that includes a short sortable key (TS, OCD, SC, etc-- it's too much clutter in the table that makes it hard for me).  If you agree, and with patience, I'll get to that as I'm able.  Now I am the one having a hard time keeping up here, but I think getting our sources nailed down was a crucial first step.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment here.  Are you saying you can't get the googlebook version of the review that is listed in our Sources? . I have the full PDF, but the document is available there. Buster23 (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might not know the limitations of google books. They usually only let you access an article x times (I don't know what x is, and I think it depends on geographic location), and then you're locked out for good.  At least that's my understanding based on discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it has happened to me before.  So I've avoiding clicking on the link (except to verify it's there) until I'm ready to start writing, and hoping to get the real thing soon.  I'm still focused on gathering info, and not necessarily keeping up with your article changes yet.  I continue to believe that we will work better if we work in sandbox together, once we've both got access to all sources, so I'm working on summarizing for you the sources I have and you don't. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Source queries
Since I'm still getting hold of some reviews, and because we've had past issues with original research sourced to articles that didn't discuss PANDAS, I want to be sure these articles specifically deal with PANDAS (which is not mentioned in their abstracts) before I pay for them. Buster23, could you please provide some brief quotes on talk here for each of these articles listed in the sources, just enough to indicate why I would pay for these articles? In several instances, a google scholar search doesn't indicate relevance to PANDAS for these sources. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1)  Abstract doesn't mention PANDAS, pls provide brief quotes establishing relevance.
 * This reference and the next four are really about bringing in the EAE mouse model discussion. They provide good analysis on the Yaddanpudi paper.  The topic here is about proving auto-immune.  To do this one has to show that passive transfer causes the behavioral change.  Hornig's and Yaddanapudi provide that support.  Buster23 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Source is not about PANDAS, using it would be WP:OR, removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * , Full text does not mention PANDAS as far as I can tell from a ctrl-f search. Why is it included in the list?  We should avoid doing synthesis from articles that aren't specifically dealing with PANDAS.
 * Until we use the source, it certainly isn't WP:SYN. The article is about the auto-immune activity and material on the Th1 and Th17 aspect. I can make the point with another review. Buster23 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Source is not about PANDAS, using it would be WP:OR, removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Abstract doesn't mention PANDAS, pls provide brief quotes establishing relevance.
 * Here's some of the material "Also similar to Sydenham chorea, PANDAS serum immunoglobulin (Ig) G and CSF have been shown to react with both the GlcNAc epitope of the GAS carbohydrate and lysoganglioside GM1 of neurons, suggesting that the mechanism of pathogenesis of PANDAS is an antibody-directed neuronal cell signaling cascade, as in Sydenham chorea [Kirvan et al., 2006a;Kirvan, Swedo, Snider, & Cunningham, 2006b]. In order for antibody-induced signal transduction in neurons to be the mechanism of immunopathogenesis in both Sydenham chorea and PANDAS, the disease-producing antibody must gain access to the CNS. A recent study has identified the sialic acid-cleaving protein, NanA, on the surface of the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae, another species in the streptococcus..." Buster23 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Content related to PANDAS and Sydenham's; good to keep. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Abstract doesn't mention PANDAS, pls provide brief quotes establishing relevance.
 * Here's some of the material "Is PANDAS a separate nosological entity from SC? It seems that the SC/PANDAS spectrum is relatively homogenous, clinically, paraclinically and probably pathogenetically (Table 3). The fact that adults may be afflicted by both conditions would argue against separating the pediatric and the adult entities. If the evidence for anti-BG antibody mediation and GABHS cross-reactivity in PANDAS becomes as convincing as in SC, there may be a rationale in lumping the GABHS-associated conditions together under the new term PANAMAS (pediatric/adult neuropsychiatric and movement disorders associated with Streptococci)." a position that PANDAS is an extension of SC. Don't know if we have that position clearly stated eelsewhere. Buster23 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Content related to PANDAS and Sydenham's; good to keep. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * , Full text, has only one sentence about PANDAS which adds nothing to what is in other reviews, why is this on the list? "Finally, animal models using pathogenic stimuli, such as through the passive transfer of autoantibodies in the recently described mouse model of PANDAS also show promise (Yaddanapudi et al. 2009)."
 * Yes, this was being brought in to discuss the new mouse model studies. According to WP:SYN I need a source that talks about PANDAS and the promise of the mouse model in order to write about both. Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of our sources say the same thing (and more) than that one sentence says.  I'm wondering why we need such a lengthy list, when that source has only one sentence about PANDAS, and many sources discuss the animal model. Why do we want a source only to say "has promise", when other sources discuss the animal models in detail? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added only one sentence, well covered elsewhere, removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * , Full text, has only one line about PANDAS. All it says is:  "For example, streptococcal infection may be associated with an abrupt, exacerbating-remitting early-onset form of OCD, which is termed pediatric autoimmune disorder associated with streptococcus (PANDAS), but little is known about this condition, and in particular about the genesis of this OCRD [26]."  This sort of text is available in many place;  we should avoid cluttering the source list.  Why is this on the list? Have I missed some text in there?
 * Oh, this one wasn't on the list for PANDAS but for the descriptions of OCD. I was grabbing a reference on presentation of OCD. Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need to describe OCD in this article; this article is about PANDAS. We link to OCD.  We only need to discuss OCD to the extent something about is different in PANDAS, and for that, we have sources that discuss PANDAS and OCD, and their relationship, in detail.  Again, why are we burdening future readers to this page, who may go out and pay to acquire sources, only to discover that the source has one line about PANDAS, that adds nothing new?  This article isn't obsessive-compulsive disorder, and we don't rewrite that article here (that was one of the problems with the article.)  If that article has content for expanding obsessive-compulsive disorder, it can be added there. OCD is linked here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adds only one sentence, available in many other sources, not needed; removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Abstract doesn't mention PANDAS, pls provide brief quotes establishing relevance.
 * There's a lot in this one. "There is evidence that both Sydenham’s chorea and PANDAS are secondary to immune reactivity against the brain, especially the basal ganglia [15,23], a hypothesis supported by finding antibodies reactive against the neurons of the caudate nucleus [24]. It is now widely accepted that the antibodies triggered by b-haemolytic streptococcus by a molecular mimicry mechanism cross-react with antigens in the joints, heart, and brain [25], but to firmly establish etiological links to cerebral disorders further research will be needed [26]." Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's good. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Abstract doesn't mention PANDAS, pls provide brief quotes establishing relevance.
 * Sure, here's a short snippet, nice stuff on anti-neuronal antibodies too. "Given these findings, Swedo140 proposed that there is a subgroup of prepubertal children, who, after exposure to streptococcal infection, did not develop RF but instead had an abrupt onset of OCD and TS symptoms. Swedo140 referred to this group of children as Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS). The hypothesized mechanism underlying the relationship between streptococcal infection, RF and the OCD spectrum manifestations is the molecular mimicry between bacteria and host. This assumption has been widely supported by several studies showing higher levels of autoantibodies in OCD patients.144" Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is new there that isn't covered in the reviews we already have about PANDAS?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps good to read the article :). Here's some more "It was initially proposed that exposure to streptococcus represented an ‘environmental cause’ of OCD and related disorders.140 However, this does not appear to be the case, given that familial aggregation for OCD/TS has been described in relatives of PANDAS probands.153 The rate of OCD found in relatives of OCD triggered by streptococcal infection cases (PANDAS/OCD) was the same as that found for OCD in relatives of children with OCD. It has been proposed that early-onset OCD shares underlying mechanisms with OCD triggered by streptococcal infections. On the other hand, it is also possible that, given the high frequency of exposure to streptococcus of prepubertal children, the reported association between OCD and exposure to streptococcus could be spurious. The same may be true for TS. In summary, it has been demonstrated that there is an association between OCD/TS and streptococcal infections with and without RF (Table 6). However, it is not currently known if PANDAS, OCD, TS, RF and SC result from common susceptibility genes and, if so, what the common pathophysiological mechanisms might be." I'm hesitant to include more here in the interest of copyright.  There's also an interesting image in the paper. Buster23 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * , Full text, no mention of PANDAS, and an outdated source as well. Other recent reviews discuss molecular mimicry in the context of PANDAS, what does this article add that would not be synthesis?
 * This is a great paper looking at the dual infection hypothesis. It is a good explanation of the auto-immune function that is only lightly touched in the PANDAS papers. Very nice foundational paper and review for those wondering about the science in auto-immunity. Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mention PANDAS; isn't about PANDAS. Original research.  If you want to write about the dual infection hypothesis, you could start an article on the topic, add the content there, and that article could be linked in this article if a source about this article mentions the dual infection hypothesis.  This is the kind of going off-topic into synthesis and original research that occurred in the earlier (now merged) PANS article.  We aren't writing a textbook; in writing for Wikipedia, we report what the sources say on this topic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Source is not about PANDAS, using it would be WP:OR, removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Abstract doesn't mention PANDAS, pls provide brief quotes establishing relevance.
 * This one can go. I thought this was from you. Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK (could be-- I'm not looking at the list now, only the PMID). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * , Full text, this is a history specific to SC that doesn't even mention PANDAS. We have other histories that do mention the relevance of SC to PANDAS, what does this article add that wouldn't be synthesis?
 * It provides an excellent history and the discussion on epidemiologic studies. It can be discussed about epidemiologic studies without reference on PANDAS. We aren't making a A and B therefore C. We're saying B is like A (in reference Y) and here's a description of how A was found (in reference Z).  I've read WP:SYN many times and this seems a valid construct. Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto commentary above. If it contains good info on SC, that is added to the SC article, which is linked from here.  We have a multitude of sources that cover SC and its relationship to PANDAS.  This article isn't about PANDAS-- its content can be added to Sydenham's chorea.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Belongs at Sydenham's chorea, will add there; removed here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The list of sources relevant to PANDAS should be a chart that would help any new reader/editor come up to speed on PANDAS; I'm concerned that we've cluttered the chart with 11 sources that appear to be tangentially related at best, add nothing new (one sentence only), or whose only potential use would be synthesis. Unless there is a compelling reason for these to be on the list, I suggest removing them (which is not the same as saying there is no potential use for any given source, to be discussed). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll start in on this list tomorrow (or perhaps after dinner). I didn't see this at first as this section is at the top and not in chronological order.  I thought you wanted sections in chronological order.  I'll cut and paste content from the material.  On the first 4, these review the Yaddanpudi paper which shows passive transfer.  The unfortunate issue is that few of the neurologists follow the microbiology or immunology papers.  The point about WP:SYN is a good one.  I was planning to have a section on mouse models but without conclusion on PANDAS -- only about the existance of the research and the findings in the reviews.  Leckman refers to the Yaddanapudi work and other reviews discus that research.  This is not A says X and B says Y therefore Z.  It is A talks about X and B talks about X in more detail.  Yaddanapudi showed that behavioral changes could occur in the passive transfer of antibodies in EAE mice. Presume you have that paper:  Buster23 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a new purpose for the Sources page. Originally I thought you and I were agreeing on which sources we would collectively draw from. We hadn't (at the time) started formulating the article -- although you've started editing heavily now.  I'll add the other references above.  Sorry about intermixing my answers to your edit, but I wasn't quite sure whether I should cut and paste the query/response. If that's bothersome, let me know how you'd like the answers interspersed.  By the way, on the two TS papers at the top, can you tell me what's in those? Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * TALK might help with the talk page issues. The unfortunate issue is that few of the neurologists follow the microbiology or immunology papers. We report what sources say; we don't write the material ourselves.  That is original research; if the neurologist don't follow microbiology (something I dispute), we don't fix that with original research.  If you want to write about mouse models in general, that would be in an article about mouse models; that article would then be linked here, where we only discuss mouse models based on what PANDAS sources say about them.  "You and I were agreeing on which sources we would collectively draw from"; well, I don't know where you got that idea, since I started the source page :)  The source page will endure beyond you and me, and shouldn't be something that encourages future readers to go out and pay for sources that have nothing to do with PANDAS or little to add.  Yes, it's also a starting place for us to decide which sources to use, and to know which sources each of us has access to, and for that it has been useful, as it reveals some confusion about original research.  I haven't begun to edit heavily: I've cleaned up primary sources and old reviews, replacing them with newer reviews, and added a Society and culture section, which was missing per MEDMOS. Your interspersed responses above are fine! But you're making me tear my hair out with having to format some of your talk posts :) :) Which two TS papers?  Give me a PMID, I'll give you the relevant text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could see many purposes for the list. Yes you started it, but you invited me to tag it with the references I had and the reviews I thought important.  There seem to be  different purposes for the list. One is a list to help other editors get up to speed (if there ever are any) and two is a list of reviews that we might want to use in the article -- so we agree on the list before trying to use the reference and three is is to ensure that you and I are reading the same material. I'll follow up today with responses above. I should be back to my filing cabinet after this flight.  Buster23 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Robertson, Singer 2011
Assuming you mean Robertson and Singer 2011, which are the first two TS sources on our list that aren't freely available-- I'll put some excerpts here. Have to take care with copyright issues, though. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added a URL for Robertson2011. It is freely available (from the UK anyway). Colin°Talk 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: the complexities of phenotype and treatment. Lists the PANDAS criteria, then " ... the disorder is very specific in terms of symptomatology and dramatic commencement after the streptococcal infection, and in this author's opinion is relatively rare. PANDAS syndrome remains under some debate, and the relationship between PANDAS and Tourette syndrome is controversial. Several centres have found laboratory evidence of group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal infections in some patients with Tourette syndrome and/or documented that some Tourette syndrome patients have increased antibasal ganglia antibodies, while the finding is disputed by others." More similar text covering the findings and the dispute, concluding with " ... there seems no doubt that a sub-group of patients with Tourette syndrome have an increased susceptibility to group A betahaemolytic streptococcal infections, and evidence suggests that this may well be the result of immune deficiency which renders the patients more prone to upper respiratory infections. The relationship between the subgroup and the PANDAS syndrome remains unclear in the author's opinion." BTW, Robertson is known as the leading TS type in the UK. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Robertson 2011

Tourette syndrome and other tic disorders. Defines the hypothesis, followed by " ... hypothesis, however, remains controversial based on clinical criteria and the measurement of antineuronal antibodies and other biomarkers (Kurlan, 2004; Kurlan and Kaplan, 2004; Martino et al., 2009). One major area of disagreement is whether GABHS is a distinct etiology for tics or just another environmental exacerbating factor. Epidemiological studies of PANDAS have produced conflicting results (Perrin et al., 2004; Mell et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2007), plus it has been established that clinicians often fail to follow required standards (Gabbay et al., 2008). Further, in contrast to proposed criteria (Swedo et al., 1998), two separate 2-year longitudinal studies ... have failed to identify that GABHS infections are an ongoing contributor to tic, OCD, or behavioral symptoms (Kurlan et al., 2008; Leckman et al., in press). A second ... hypothesis is that, if PANDAS is truly an autoimmune disorder, serum antineuronal antibodies should be detectable in affected individuals. Results to date, however, have been inconclusive", followed by long discussion of inconclusive results. "Results of several additional studies raise serious concerns about the viability of autoimmunity as a pathophysiological mechanism in this disorder. These include the failure of various immune markers ... to correlate with clinical exacerbations in a longitudinal study of children with PANDAS (Singer et al., 2008), the inability to identify differences in immune testing in PANDAS subjects following preabsorption of sera with streptococci (Singer et al., 2005), and the lack of an association between putative antibodies and a distinct meaningful phenotypical finding (Martino et al., 2007) or structural abnormality in gray or white matter (Martino et al., 2008)." Followed by long discussion of cytokines. "In summary, this author believes that the proposed poststreptococcal autoimmune disorder PANDAS deserves careful study, but that, to date, its validity remains unproven." Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Singer 2011

Working on getting the reference to the Hypothesis for PANDAS
I think we have to clean up. This introduced the awkward lead sentence:

The stronger and more correct statement of the hypothesis is:

The hypothesis is not whether the children develop onset following GABHS, but rather that GABHS caused the condition. This is the threshold being tested in the studies.

Another hypothesis tested by Kurlan2008 and Leckman2010 is:

Both are being tested by experiments. It is the causality of symptoms (i.e., disease) not the existance of symptoms (i.e., syndrome) that is being debated.

Here are the quotes on the null hypothesis:
 * "Under the null hypothesis of no temporal association between infections and exacerbations, exacerbations were expected to be randomly distributed between the infection periods and the noninfection periods." Leckman2010 and Kurlan2008
 * "null hypothesis that antineuronal antibody profiles, antiganglioside profiles, and measurements of cytokines would be similar across the 2 diagnostic groups: ExWS and ExWOS." Singer 2008
 * "The null hypothesis assumes that acute exacerbations and GABHS infections are independent events." Lou 2004

Buster23 (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've moved this new section to the bottom of the talk page, to respect talk page guidelines about chronological order of sections. Not only is that customary, but it also makes it easier to see what is new (and what is unfinished above-- something I haven't yet gotten to because I took time off to generate the source list).  For someone who twice mentioned that you couldn't engage at my rate and needed more time, leading me to agree to slow down the pace here,   you're clipping right along, just as I'm less available because it's a weekend!  I have less editing time on weekends than during the week (and by the way I have a large family funeral this week and into next weekend), but will put up a general response to everything unaddressed above as soon as I can-- my efforts this weekend were focused on getting our sources in line.  However, my general response remains the same as it has been for several days:  there is very little in this article that doesn't need rewriting and updating, all of the text is contentious and debated in the sources, so are you willing to begin working collaboratively in Sandbox?  If not, I'll explain the pros and cons of different approaches to improving this article, but allegations of ownership are not the best way to create a collaborative environment.   I have asked you multiple times on this page if you're willing to work together in Sandbox as soon as we've both gathered all the sources.  I haven't seen you answer that question.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yesterday I had time, and the next two weeks I won't. I do sleep though. I'm sorry to hear of the death in your family. Buster23 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On working in SandBox, I'm not quite sure how that will work. Are you recommending that so that our partial edits are not visible on the main page? Certainly working here in talk is quite cumbersome and definitely making concrete changes would help.  It has been frustrating that I've made recommendations for changes with good reasons and citations and yet held off on editing the main page because I thought you hadn't either answered or agreed with the proposal.

On WP:OWN, I can appreciate that would be sensitive, but also want to check that you and I aren't doing the steps that are listed (like thinking no one else knows how to edit the article or removing text we think is false even if well cited). I'm sure neither of us want to come across as appearing to own the article. Just as you are bothered by updates that don't follow our agreement to use secondary sources, I'm bothered that the current article does not obey the rules we've agreed to here. I dislike it when there are different rules. On moving sections, no problem. I thought you wanted to keep sources at the bottom (sort of like end-notes). My mistake if that wasn't your intent. It seemed logical for that to be a final section. On missing elements, I do have an outstanding question still to you so I know how to close the prior set of conversations. Please answer the questions, "What is the PANDAS hypothesis?" that is stated in the first paragraph. It could be any of a group that I've found. Then "What is the PANS hypothesis?". If there is such a hypothesis you should be able to write it down. Buster23 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

New updates to Article
I've made an edit to the main article based on the conversations here.. I think this balances the concerns and the objections raised. I'll reintroduce the 10-fold increase when we get a history section. It's cited in four reviews I've found so far. If you disagree, can we discuss here since I'd like to hear alternate phrasing as the prior material wasn't correct. Buster23 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the 10-fold issue is based on Kiessling ... is that correct? I don't have all the sources yet.  If it is based on Keissling, that is too small of a sample to be bringing in the 10-fold number, and the sources I read last night summarized the issue as a "large increase" rather than specifically referring to 10-fold.  When we get to that, could we put the quotes from sources we've each found here on talk, and come to consensus whether the specific mention of 10-fold is warranted by those sources?  I haven't looked at your other additions-- was trying to finish the overdiagnosis issue so that one primary source could be replaced by secondary reviews (which is something that can easily be done throughout, btw-- I don't know where so many primary sources came from, but they can all be upgraded to reviews if you have them-- I'm still waiting to get some of them).  One down.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The 10-fold increase is from Pichichero (as referenced above where we discussed Pichichero and you asked for the exact quote). It is also in I think Schulmann. I'll go back and find it. It is a pretty standard reference. I've pulled it from current article for a while, but as it is what triggered some of the focus from PITAND on PANDAS, it will be good to reintroduce. On the antibiotic stuff, it's coming across as decidedly a POV and unbalanced.  I think you are going to have to also reference the proper treatment and clinical reports by Murphy.  Similarly, the Turkish study was removed that probably has to come back on efficacy of immunomodulation. I'll wait until you signal you are done with your edit on antibiotics. That portion as it stands seems unbalanced, but maybe you aren't done. Buster23 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding-- I know what review you found it in, but is the data based on the Kiessling study? Kiessling was a very small sample, so 10-fold overstates the precision-- other sources I was reading last night simply described it as a "large increase".  Could you verify that Shulman and Pichichero are referencing Kiessling?  Or better, don't worry about this yet !!  I'll check when I get those sources ... you can see from the chart what sources I have, and I can only add for now what I've got access to :) :)  I only added the treatment stuff now that I had in the interest of removing that one primary source that concerned you earlier-- that doesn't mean we're done.  Again, this is why working in Sandbox would be better; we wouldn't constantly be discussing a partially built article.  We'd be rebuidling from scratch, agreeing as we go.  But whatever ... I don't seem to have convinced you yet ... perhaps because I'm just trying to gather sources still. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with "cleaning up" the current article removing the primary references and replacing them. I asked you whether you were okay with flagging those references with  as this would give us something to concretely do.  I'm not okay if during the replacement of sources we introduce more imbalance to the article.  It seems the efficacy of the Perlmutter study is downplayed in the current article when a >50% reduction in symptoms is a huge deal.  Replication of that study is currently underway at the NIMH.  Sort of a shame that more than a decade had to pass to replicate such a remarkable study.  But then it was many many years until the contributions of Marshal and Warren were recognized.  sort of sad story about what happened to them while trying to prove their hypothesis.  Presume you are aware of the saga. Buster23 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No source that I have read yet (and I'm still reading) highlights the Perlmutter study. All mention that the "strongest evidence" supporting PANDAS comes from Mell et al.  Again, as to whether we should prioritize to clean up what's already in the aricle, or start over in sandbox, I advocate starting over, but in the meantime, switching primary sources to secondary is easy and fast.  But, my first priority is to gather and get through all sources.  You don't need anyone's permission to tag primary sources:  I'm just questioning why one would take the time to do that when switching them to a secondary source is just as easy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I believe I've now read most of the review sources. Mell is consistenly mentioned as the most supportive of the hypothesis-- everything else suffers from methodological issues, all of which are amply covered by the sources.  IMO, Perlmutter is no more "downplayed" here than any other research.  The problem is, the article is incomplete, but when adding mention of these studies from reviews, both the pros and cons of each study are discussed in multiple reviews (Pichichero, btw, in my opinion is one of the reviews that does the least good job of summarizing the strengths, weaknesses, and methodological issues in each study.  A good job is done by almost all of the other reviews since 2009, so while Pichichero is a helpful review, there are several others that are now more up to date.)  By the way, in terms of how often articles are cited by other researchers (data you can get from scholar.google.com), Kurlan 2004 (which you dislike) is cited in the literature as often as Perlmutter and Mell, so it appears that other researchers may disagree with your opinion of Kurlan's 2004 article.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I know I'm repeating myself again, but there is little to nothing in the current article that is complete or correct. That is why I advocate re-building in sandbox.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No answer on Kiessling, I still don't have Pichichero, but I found the answer myself. See Talk:PANDAS below. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

SG, please signal when you are done with editing the current article. Please see if the section you put in on antibiotic treatment is balanced and written from both sides. It comes across decidedly one sided right now. I don't want to edit if you are in the middle of an edit. Also, I do want to start in on the PANS section, but waiting until you've gotten to a stable point so our edits don't overlap. Buster23 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read my posts above? I mentioned several times that I was only updating to remove the primary source on overdiagnosis and add the sources that covered overdiagnosis, since I came across that in secondary sources while I was reading.  As I already mentioned, that section-- in fact, no section-- in this article is complete or correct, and I believe we will do better to re-build everything in sandbox, starting from the best sources, and defining a structure before we start.  I'm not editing anymore for now.  On the matter of structure, though, I did notice though that you just split some PANS text from its separate section and added it to PANDAS text.  I hope you're considering that, should PANS gain traction, and should additional sources become available, combining text about it throughout the article will make it harder to later merge it to a separate article, should PANS eventually meet notability with additional publications.  I recommend keeping PANS and PANDAS separate, in the event an eventual PANS article can be written. You may disagree, but keeping them as separate as possible may be of potential future use.  Again, working in sandbox, collaborating, discussing to define structure would save a LOT of typing time here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have read all your posts above. There are a couple unanswered questions from me to you, so hope you can get to them when you get a moment. I see that you are working on replacing primary with secondary reviews.  I hear your recommendation about keeping PANS and PANDAS seperate, but we resolved a debate on the AFD for PANS saying we would merge the articles and thus I'm doing that merge.  I like the merge at this point; although see that we did not bring over the description of symptoms from the PANS article.  This needs to be added at some point as anxiety in a child is quite different in presentation and all that work was lost in the current activity. However, to prevent creating an imbalance to the PANDAS paper, I'll hold on bringing in most of that text. My gut is a light expansion in the symptoms/identification section of what is meant by some of the terms will be enough to close. But I'll wait a bit there.Buster23 (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The text that was correctly sourced was merged; the other text was incorrectly sourced from articles that didn't even mention PANS. That's why there was a merge ... we don't yet have more than one source on PANS, and using PANDAS sources to discuss PANS is synthesis, original research.  I've now read Murphy Kurlan and Leckman 2010,   which reads like a precursor to the PANS proposal, and leads me to suspect that within a matter of months we may see more reviews on the PANS proposal, and be able to write that article.  For now, there are multiple research directions for a way forward that can be discussed here-- the PANS proposal is not the only one, so we need to see how it shakes out.  I've created a "Research directions" section, conforming with WP:MEDMOS.  We can discuss anxiety, etc with respect to PANDAS from PANDAS sources in this article.  We can discuss anxiety wrt PANS based on the one PANS source in the PANS section.  Mixing the two is original research and synthesis.  Please take a careful look at WP:SYN.  There is much more than a "light expansion" needed here:  I continue to ask that we build a new article in sandbox.  Otherwise, for now, I've gotten through almost every source (which has been my focus), and have so far only done minimal work on the article, all of which needs expansion. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with working in SandBox, but thought that was what you were already doing. Working in a personal SandBox and then merging your changes onto the article. I've been trying not to edit any of your additions because I see them as "in transition".  If you'd prefer I can comment on each addition. Buster23 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Disease classification"
Is this text really sourced to Pichichero? If so, could you please provide the quote here on talk? This doesn't look quite right. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added reference to Stedman's. Discussion is about difference between a disease, illness and a syndrome. Unfortunately Stedman isn't easily online. Buster23 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The text doesn't agree with the source; since it's unclear to me what you're trying to say with this sentence, or why it has been added, I haven't attempted to fix it myself. Please see WP:SYN-- whenever going to a source that isn't about PANDAS, you may be doing original research; what do the PANDAS sources say about why PANDAS hasn't been classified as disorder? If you provide something from one of our review sources about PANDAS, I'll be better able to understand where you're going with this.  We should be able to write it from PANDAS sources, being sure to avoid original research.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just back -- See lots of edits
Just back from travel and saw lots of edits. I need some sleep but will start in on this tomorrow.

The quote: "... perhaps the most controversial putative TS trigger is exposure to streptococcal infections. The ubiquity of strep throats, the tremendous societal implications of over-treatment (eg, antibiotic resistance or immunosuppressant side effects) versus medical implications of under-treatment (eg, potentially irreversible autoimmune neurologic injury) are serious matters. With the level of desperation among Internet-armed parents, this controversy has sparked contentious disagreements, too often lacking both objectivity and civility.[34]" is decidedly inflammatory, not from a reliable secondary source, and biases the article. The article is not neutral. Appreciate it is likely in transition, but the editor making these changes is providing WP:UNDUE to a single inflammatory quote. Buster23 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better quote would be the Leckman/Swedo 2012 one of "Indeed, studies that did not clearly establish acuity of onset for their PANDAS cases found few differences between the cases and non-PANDAS controls. 19-20, 34... Not surprisingly, such studies produced negative data, which was interpreted as refuting the PANDAS hypothesis. In contrast, studies that adhered closely to the PANDAS diagnostic criteria produced positive data and were seen as supporting a role for GAS in the etiology of neuropsychiatric symptoms (reviewed by Murphy, Kurlan & Leckman[37]). Adding to the confusion of the conflicting data reports were editorial debated about the validity of the PANDAS subgroup an the utility of its hypothesized etiology.38-31 The resulting 'PANDAS controversy' adversely affected researchers, clinicians and acutely ill children and their parents, who were all left confused about the appropriate course of action to be taken in the face of such diametically opposing views."

The current additions are creating a very specific bias to the paper that is not reflected in the reviews. Buster23 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No answer below as to why you consider this a reliable source for societal impact, but Swerdlow not; however, I have added the societal portion to the Sandbox version (remainder goes under mechanism etc.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New edits
The following line was included on the PANDAS article: Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) is a newer hypothesis used to describe a subset of acute-onset OCD cases;[1] the newer hypothesis includes "all cases of abrupt onset OCD, not just those associated with streptococcal infections".[1] I recommend modifying this to say:  Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) describes the clinical presentation of a subset of acute-onset OCD cases. The goal of PANS criteria is to concisely define the presentation so that research studies can be compared based on uniform and homogeneous subject selection.[1] I read through the whole PANS paper and clearly see the proposed critera but do not see a stated hypothesis. Buster23 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating from the discussion here text from the source that I don't feel is adequately conveyed by your proposed text:"The goal of the new PANS criteria is to attempt to define the clinical presentation of a relatively narrow group of patients in order to improve the comparability of research samples. ... The proposed criteria should be considered as 'working criteria', which will undergo modifications and refinement as additional clinical and research experience is accrued. ... A set of criteria for Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) has been proposed in order to identify a unique and homogenous group of patients who share key clinical characteristics, including the fulminant onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and a multiplicity of co-occurring signs and symptoms. The draft criteria must now be validated through careful, systematic application in clinical practice and research investigations. Systematic clinical observations are needed in order to learn more about the clinical characteristics, natural and treated history, and prognosis of PANS, as well as to identify potential precipitants of symptom onset and exacerbations. Research investigations are required to evaluate the validity, reliability and utility of the draft criteria, as well as to evaluate potential etiologic factors and mechanisms of disease that might be common to the disorders subsumed under the PANS clinical description." PANS is a working hypothesis; let's now try to make it more than it is. We should stay true to the source here, particularly since the NIH website is presenting the proposal in more concrete terms, and the Swedo/Leckman paper represents the combined position of government and private researchers, who have long had disagreements in this area.  Let's represent the source accurately to avoid POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your cut/paste, but don't agree that the statement in the wikipedia PANDAS article matches the above paragraph.  If you say PANS is a hypothesis, then you have to state what the hypothesis is (which is not in the paragraph above).  A proposal is not a hypothesis.  The proposal is the criteria, a hypothesis would be that these children have a different etiology of symptoms -- but that isn't in the text.  The statement needs to be reworded to more accurately reflect the cut and paste (and the rest of the body of the paper).  I think my text does that. Can you point out what is wrong in my statement?  Buster23 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PANDAS is a hypothesis; PANS is a proposal to modify that hypothesis. Any wording that moves away from that obscures that fact that PANS is very much a "working definition", for research purposes.  Your text moves too far away from the source for my comfort.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You are absolutely misreading. I'm fine with PANDAS being a hypothesis. However, PANS is a research criteria. Are you purposefully misreading? Or doing original research or synthesis?  Please provide the statement that PANS is a hypothesis.  Please state the hypothesis. The PANDAS hypothesis is that a subset of children with OCD or tics have antineuronal antibodies that are causing their symptoms.  Please state the PANS hypothesis.  There isn't one. It is a research criteria to investigate the subgroup. You are misrepresenting the material. Buster23 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * B23, we have a difficult task ahead of us in writing this article, and we'll advance more quickly collaboratively.  PANDAS and PANS are the same thing:  acronyms, each hypotheses, the second an extension of the first. A proposal to redefine a hypothesis to a new hypothesis is still ... another hypothesis.  PANDAS also proposed diagnostic criteria, just as PANS does.  On "purposefully misreading", please see WP:AGF-- we will more quickly understand where we are misunderstanding each other with good faith assumptions. With that in mind, perhaps we can focus on the text:  my concern with your text is that it downplays the point of the redefinition, which is a "working criteria" for research purposes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SG, I have tried multiple times to say the same thing. You are mistaken here.  PANDAS is a hypothesis with a criteria.  PANS is just a criteria.  You are treating PANS as a replacement to PANDAS and it is not.  PANS is a research criteria to assist with epidemiology studies of a homogeneous group.  I don't know how else to help you see this.   It is NOT a hypothesis. It is a research selection criteria. Anything else is misleading at best. Please write down (as I've ask 3 times now) the hypothesis you claim PANS is.Buster23 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SG, can you pop up here and try this thread once more? Buster23 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You say: PANS is a research criteria to assist with epidemiology studies of a homogeneous group. How is that different from PANDAS?  Do you believe PANDAS was anything more, ie, a recognized entity? It doesn't appear we are going to agree on this (that one hypothesis found deficient was supplemented by another), so as long as we don't present PANS as more than it is (a working definition for research purposes, developed after the PANDAS hypothesis was found problematic), we should be able to find compromise wording. Have you read  and  ? Both of them lay the groundwork for the PANS proposal (CANS was changed to PANS for better age definitions).  Your idea of why PANS was proposed doesn't seem comprehensive to me (you focus only on etiology); here's one sample:"Having identified significant limitations to the PANDAS hypothesis, it is suggested that this diagnosis be eliminated. Recognizing, however, that clinicians will continue to encounter children with the acute onset of tics, OCD, and other neuropsychiatric symptoms, establishing a new broader diagnostic category is essential. Our suggested approach adopts a more encompassing concept of acute fulminant neuropsychiatric symptoms, but requires an active search for a specific etiology. The proposed CANS classification does not require association with a specific organism, limitation of symptoms to tics or OCD, a specific age range, or recurrence of symptoms. It does, however, require an acute dramatic onset, a comprehensive history and examination, and diagnostic evaluation."     Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the CANS paper and there are many many problems with that paper -- not the least of which is that the authors seem to have no idea what a carrier is and contradict themselves multiple times. It is most certainly not a review but rather an editorial. Can we stick with the reviews as we discussed and decided? Would rather not debate the primary research. The comments about age is also incorrect, since Pediatric is defined beyond childhood. Adolescents are included in pediatric and not in childhood. You might want to read the PANS paper that addressed the CANS paper and highlighted why that position was rejected in the conference. Buster23 (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You, Buster23, are saying that Harvey Singer-- a recognized and distinguished expert in his field-- doesn't know what a carrier is? Nice :) :)  OK, if you consider Singer as "editorial", then what is Swedo, Leckman, Rose 2012 and why do you consider it appropriate?  Singer is a review.  Thank you for suggesting I read the PANS paper; nice idea!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny - but good jab back. I'll most certainly let other experts try to reconcile the two statements in the CANS paper: "individual being a streptococcal carrier (harboring GABHS for many months without symptoms of infection or an associated immune response)." Then "GABHS carriers can have protractedly elevated antistreptococcal antibody titers"On PANS, I just meant that Leckman discussed why the name CANS was rejected and that there wasn't clinical support for the CANS syndrome (whereas there was data for the PANS one).Buster23 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, CANS was changed to PANS for better age definitions."Childhood Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (CANS) was also proposed, but was not favored because 'childhood; would exclude adolescents, while 'pediatric' extends to at least age 18 years (and in some definitions, 21 years). Because adolescent cases were not uncommon in the clinicians' experience, the conference participants decided that the new syndrome should not exclude cases with postpubertal onset, as the PANDAS criteria had done. http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/PANDAS-to-PANS2012.pdf" Still waiting for an answer on why you classify some papers (those you disagree with) as "editorials", yet accepts the Swedo, Leckman Rose paper as a reliable source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not whether I agree with or disagree with Singer's paper. I agree that both the Swedo/Leckman and the Singer paper have some review material. Probably neither meets the criteria of a secondary source. In Swedo's case, it is a concensus report from a conference at the NIH summarizing 10 years of clincial data, in the Singer case it presents a new syndrome classification without citing any clinical data to support the position.  The point, however, is moot.  I do think it is an odd paper, but if you feel it is worth citing I won't reject it.  The point above was that the paper has an odd contradiction on the definition of carrier.  Buster23 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Attractiveness of the hypothesis"
"The attractiveness of the hypothesis is that if true, new avenues of treatment and prevention might be available.[3]" This text was added based on Pichichero,   I now have Pichichero, and I must be missing it, because I can find nothing in the article that supports this text. Please quote the text from the source that was used to support this wording. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go back to verify Pichichero which I have in paper. Online I have Moretti2008 which states "Current data emerging or patients with chorea, PANDAS and OCD seem to suggest that CaM kinase II could be an intracellular mediator of behavioral and motor manifestations in some neuropsychiatric disorders [referring to Kirvan2006] .... No studies have yet shown whether the physiological systems activating this signal cascade interact with possible disease-relatd (autoimmune?) triggers.  If they do, these interactions could be a new target for possble pharmacological approaches in disorders such as OCD and choreiform disorders."
 * Hope that helps. There are several others. Buster23 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you (I didn't think I could find anything like that in Pichichero). The quote from Moretti does not verify the text in the article; would you like to reword, or shall I?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Help me with how you don't see the text verified. What are you disagreeing with?  Are you saying that you don't agree that the hypothesis has attractiveness? or something else?  Buster23 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, as you wish. Starting over: Text in article:"The attractiveness of the hypothesis is that if true, new avenues of treatment and prevention might be available.[3]"Text from source:"Current data emerging or patients with chorea, PANDAS and OCD seem to suggest that CaM kinase II could be an intracellular mediator of behavioral and motor manifestations in some neuropsychiatric disorders [referring to Kirvan2006] .... No studies have yet shown whether the physiological systems activating this signal cascade interact with possible disease-relatd (autoimmune?) triggers. If they do, these interactions could be a new target for possble pharmacological approaches in disorders such as OCD and choreiform disorders." The sentence is original research. There are things along these lines that might be said in the article, but since it's still unclear what you're trying to say, and since I'm not yet ready to begin adding detail about aspects like CaM kinase II as an intracellular mediator, I don't see how you can get anything close to this text from that source. Would you please remove that from the lead, and when crafting text, take care to avoid original research or extending statements beyond what is in the source? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No mention of prevention in source (in fact, where does prevention come in from any source?)
 * 2) The sentence is generalized to the entire hypothesis, when the source is discussing one aspect that may lead to better treatment.
 * 3) Nowhere in this source (or any source that I know of) do we find wording about "attractiveness of the hypothesis" or any reasonable synonym that I can think of, and I can't recall ever seeing that related to the second clause of your text either.
 * I'll start working on this. I presume that we have to have a balanced perspective in lead.  Here's another quite in Kalra2009 "If we are to develop more targeted therapies with fewer side effects, it is important that we learn more about the pathophysiology of the disorder. This information might also help clinicians predict the response of a patient to different treatments and monitor their progress, as well as facilitate the development of effective prevention strategies." Do you want me to start putting the material in the body so we can then see if there is sufficient body support for the quote in lead?  It does seem like the lead got addressed before the body did. Buster23 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kalra's statement was about OCD, not PANDAS. Added to sandbox version.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another quote from same article "The PANDAS subgroup of childhood-onset OCD provides a uniquely homogeneous cohort of children in whom further research may elucidate the pathophysiology of their disorder as well as open avenues for research in the pathogenesis of all forms of childhood-onset OCD." Buster23 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Some scientists who think"
"The PANDAS hypothesis is controversial and its usefulness is disputed by some scientists who think these patients do not differ significantly from the remainder of the patient population, and that infections do not increase the risk of OCD or tics." "Some scientists" is biased, and incorrect. There is almost NO review that does not dispute the hypothesis, or mention that it is unproven and controversial, so why "some", and we should avoid appeals to authority like this in encyclopedic writing-- we don't discuss the "scientists", we discuss the sources and the research (unless we're talking about Andrew Wakefield). It is possible to state this in a way that doesn't make it sound like ... oh, there's a handful of "some vague folks" who dispute the hypothesis. This is POV. They hypothesis is disputed by just about every review available (I've now gotten most of them). There is no need to personalize it to "some scientists", there are plenty more than "some", and we should be discussing the research, not the people. Please provide the exact text from the source upon which this text is based, and in the context of every review on our list. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See your comment. The line was in there for three years, but will go back and see where it came in (2009). I'm reading your note regarding the statement that "almost no review that does not dispute the hypothesis" we might want to start there and quote what each review says.  I also see that most papers seem to reference very similar content (either Luo, Singer or Kurlan for the controversy).  Buster23 (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The line wasn't in the lead for three years. Please have a careful look at WP:LEAD. Since the reviews generally agree on just about everything, I don't see much need to quote them all.  IF you have a review that disagrees that the hypothesis is controversial and not fully supported, please post it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't whether it is controversial. I agree that there is controversy (or we wouldn't be having this discussion). The issue on the quote was the word "whether it is useful"  -- we have to be careful about interpreting evidence that fails to support as evidence the refutes.  No study refutes the PANDAS hypothesis. There are studies that support and studies that have failed to support. Experiments can fail to support for a lot of reasons -- including not having the same symptoms or sample being examined (which is the assertion on Kurlan2008 and on Leckman2010). Buster23 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you've answered the question or addressed the issue, I'm missing it; please clarify. It is not "some scientists", that kind of statement doesn't belong in the lead (it may have been "some scientists" when Tim Vickers added that text more than three years ago, but it's clearly just about everyone now), and I can't tell what you mean by "the word 'whether it is useful'", since that isn't in the text we're discussing.  Please have a look at WP:LEAD; it should summarize the article.  Would you prefer that I reword this sentence to a reflection of what is in almost every source?  It would be more like this:"The PANDAS hypothesis is controversial; whether it is a distinct entity differing from other cases of TS/OCD is debated."  That avoids the entire weasel of the sentence, and accurately represents the reviews.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm good with that. I guess the question is how many times are we going to talk about the controversy and how much are we going to actually talk about the science? I may be misinterpreting your posts, but I think we agree there is controversy, we don't exactly agree on portions of the reviews that talk about why there is controversy (i.e., that there is good experiments on both sides and a reason for controversy).  It seems we are using controversy as a way to say something is refuted as opposed to using controversy to say something isn't proven.  Those are quite different things and that is the core of the POV tag.  Is there a particular section of NPOV that you wanted me to read?  I've read it many times -- but there must be a particular line that you are concerned I haven't read. Buster23 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Change made. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How many times are we going to talk about the controversy? Every review talks about the controversy; in fact, many focus on the controversy.  It's a controversial topic.  On Wikipedia, we report what sources say, so there's no way to not talk about the controversy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we going to actually talk about the science? We have made progress in a little over a week:
 * We have a source list.
 * We've dealt with most older reviews and primary sources that were in the article.
 * We're in good shape to begin expanding the article based on the source list.
 * But,
 * The source list includes articles that aren't about PANDAS, indicating a lack of understanding about original research.
 * You mention here and here (dual infection hypothesis) that you plan to use sources in this article that aren't about PANDAS; it's going to be hard to move forward on expanding text without a clear understanding of how to use sources correctly on Wikipedia.
 * Another lack of understaing of sources and original research is here.
 * A further lack of clarity of how to use sources is here.
 * The controversy about PANDAS is much more than something being either refuted or unproven. I've now read every review on this topic except those I queried above as unrelated to PANDAS. I'm curious to know if you've had a chance to get through all of them? I ask because you don't seem aware of how contentious this topic is; that could be because it's the only article you've worked on on Wikipedia, so you have nothing to compare it to, but that you seem to think this article can be written without discussing the controversy is a concern-- not sure if that's because you haven't yet gotten through all the sources, or you don't understand WP:V, WP:OR or WP:NPOV.  Without agreement and understanding about how sources are used on Wikipedia, progress is going to be difficult.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, I've read every article that I have a copy of (as marked on the Sources Page) and all that are publicly available. I noticed for example that Swerdlow does not reference PANDAS in its entirety (which seemed to be an exclusion criteria for other reviews as it would be WP:V or WP:OR or WP:SYN to leap that the author is referring to PANDAS when speaking about whether streptococcal infections are triggers for TS.  You write below that this is disingenuous.  I'm just trying to follow the same rules that we're applying to other references.  If it isn't stated in the review or that the article directly makes a reference to PANDAS, then we have been saying that it is either WP:SYN or WP:OR to make a leap that the topics are related.  I really agree that without agreement and understanding about how sources are used on Wikipedia the progress will be difficult.  So try again on why the Swerdlow paper which is titles "a commentary" on its cover and has no reference to PANDAS in the body and has an inflammatory quote not repeated in any other reliable source should be treated as meeting MEDRS. Buster23 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion
As of this version, I believe I've replaced most of the primary sources and outdated reviews. We have a comprehensive list of sources at : but I'm still waiting to hear from Buster23 on why some sources that don't mention PANDAS, or have only one line about PANDAS are included on that list. Those are flagged with a question mark (the "Key" column is sortable, click on the up/down arrows next to "Key"). So, I believe the article is in good shape now to begin expanding based on those sources. I propose that we should next discuss structure, relative to WP:MEDMOS. For example, I've noticed that several sources use the word "Evaluation" where we would normally use "Diagnosis" for a recognized entity; adjustments like that to the MEDMOS structure make sense to me. I'm concerned that we avoid the extensive synthesis and original research that was seen on PANS. And, it's not necessary to re-write in this article our articles on obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, etc-- we can just link to those articles in most cases. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:PANDAS/Sources
 * I disagree about your comment on original research or synthesis, but that issue is moot at this point. What is important is what the symptoms "look like" in the PANS section which is well documented with now over 15 years of clinical data there.  Luckily these symptoms were described in detail in the 1998 paper and throughout the reviews. Buster23 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you disagree about WP:SYN and WP:OR, but it is an issue that is occurring repeatedly, so I hope you'll give it some thought. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I hope you will too about WP:BALANCE. Buster23 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I've gone back and provided quotes for all the items you flagged. You often write "waiting to hear back" and I appreciate that it is difficult to work across timezone.  I'll be travelling next week and so please know that I won't be able to respond for a week (just in case you wanted to take a break). Buster23 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will get through updates over the next few days; busy here as well. I did read through your explanations above, and think it unfortunate that an article would be tagged for a week without justification.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now caught up on everything above: no, all of my questions weren't answered. Here is a diff of  responses, to make it easier for you to catch up when you return.  For example, specifically, I'm still struggling to understand 1) why you object to the Swerdlow quote, and 2) why you reject Swerdlow as a source while accepting Swedo, Leckman and Rose.  Since it looks to me like your concerns mostly revolve around unwritten portions of the article, I'm going to start writing.  We have many, and good, reviews that are in remarkable agreement.  I plan to work in User:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS sandbox, and suggest that there is enough text to be written about proposed causes and mechanisms that a sub-article on that area will be useful; issues, corrections, etc can be noted at User talk:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS sandbox.  The sandbox text is still quite rough at this stage.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * B23, welcome back. I only made about half the progress I hoped to make in sandbox this week, because it's slow going to get through all of the sources.  I've gotten through about half of our sources.  They all say the same thing, so I'm finding I have to go back and forth between them on describing certain studies, etc. I've gotten all of the 2011 sources, most of the 2010.  Haven't yet gotten to Murphy, Kurlan, Leckman ; halfway through de Oliviera, Pelajo ; and of the 2009 sources, the only two I'm completely done with are Gerber et al  and Shprecher, Kurlan .  I'm finding two things that are making the going slow:  1) some of the language is so precise that it's very hard to avoid plagiarism or WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE without directly quoting the sources, which is resulting in overquoting; and 2) in order to keep the various studies straight for now, I'm adding in the authors year of each study as it is discussed, which is making the text chunky and hard to read.  In other words, the text that is in sandbox thus far is not only incomplete because I've not gotten through all the sources-- it is also overquoted and chunky.  Once everything is in, the prose will need to be smoothed out and paraphrased better.   I took a break for a couple of days so I could come back to the prose fresh.  Perhaps you will look over what is in sandbox so far and note any comments at User talk:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS sandbox, but please recognize that the work is still quite rough and nowhere near done, many sources not yet worked in, and that we do have to paraphrase things in our words avoiding plagiarism and smooth out prose before it's anywhere near ready for primetime. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome back. I agree that the struggle you have in summarizing is the same one that I ran into where the terminology is very precise and to paraphrase too much can easily change the exact nature of the quote.  For example to say that data from the Perlmutter study is unreplicated is quite different from saying that the Perlmutter study was not replicated.  To say unreplicated implies other studies were done but had different results, whereas unreplicated implies that the experiments were not performed.  The paucity of research is rather remarkable given the remarkable early finding.  There is also a repeat study underway at the NIMH.  It will be interesting to see what results come from that study.  I haven't yet gone to your Sandbox to see the new article. Buster23 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
The article was tagged "POV" based on one quote from Swerdlow in Society and culture, discussing societal implications. In an article undergoing extensive expansion after we've just located and listed every review available, Buster23-- based on one quote about societal impact-- says the article is unbalanced, and claims the source is not a reliable one for that statement. Buster23 says the text is "decidely inflammatory", although Swerdlow's views printed in 2005 were echoed and expanded in the Murphy, Kurlan, Leckman review of 2010,. Could the tagger please explain why reliably sourced text about societal implications is "inflammatory"? This is what reviews say; Wikipedia doesn't pass judgment, rather reports what sources say-- in this case, high quality sources. Second, saying the article is "unbalanced" and "cherrypicking souces", Buster 23 proposes an additional quote relevant to the "Society and culture" section; some of that proposed text gets into the research, which can (and will, we still need an entire new section covering all of those issues) be better explained in sections other than Society and culture, but I do agree that this sentence from Leckman, Swedo and Rose:"The resulting 'PANDAS controversy' adversely affected researchers, clinicians and acutely ill children and their parents, who were all left confused about the appropriate course of action to be taken in the face of such diametically opposing views." would be a good addition about societal impact to the Society and culture section. Curiously, though, adding it will fall afoul of the very claim that Buster23 makes in objection to Swerdlow; if Swerdlow can't be used as an appropriate reliable source for this kind of commentary, on what basis can Swedo, Leckman Rose 2012 be used? Next, Buster23 says the additions are "creating a very specific bias to the paper that is not reflected in the reviews"; yet the text he objects to is specifically covered in secondary reviews, and I'm not aware of any source or review that disagrees with it. Murphy and Leckman 2010 expanded upon what Swerdlow said in 2005, and Swedo Leckman again expanded upon it in 2012. If the 2012 commentary is appropriate, why is the 2005 not? Also, in both posts about his POV tag, Buster23 describes the article as "unbalanced"; perhaps he intended to add the tag, considering the article is still under expansion and it will take some time to add all of the issues about the controversy? Please review WP:NPOV; POV results when reliably sourced views are excluded. Not liking the POV expressed by reliable sources is not a reason to tag an article as POV: Wikipedia reflects all reliably sourced views, and this is most certainly a reliably sourced view. I believe I've now read every review, and I see no evidence that the quotes about how the PANDAS controversy has impacted on society and been impacted upon by the media are POV. I hope Buster3 will justify the tag specifically basing it on text from WP:NPOV. Incidentally, I've avoided tagging the article as POV or unbalanced so far, in spite of considerable unsourced synthesis introduced by Buster23 in the lead, and unaddressed so far; I hope when the POV tag is removed, the unsourced POV now in the lead will also be addressed:"The attractiveness of the hypothesis is that if true, new avenues of treatment and prevention might be available." and "The PANDAS hypothesis is controversial and its usefulness is disputed by some scientists ..." I believe I've read every review source we have listed, I'm not aware of others, and we have no source that doesn't have issues with the PANDAS hypothesis. Buster23, please have a good look at WP:NPOV and explain exactly how this view, expressed by MEDRS-compliant sources, runs afoul of NPOV. Also, if you'd like me to add the sentence from Swedo Leckman Rose, I'll do that, but please explain how it is reliable for this kind of text, while Swerdlow is not. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, on the subject of POV, this sentence need work:"Given the controversy on the etiology of PANDAS (i.e., whether caused by strep throat) and the apparent ambiguity in the definitions of the clinical presentation leading to different research results, a new definition was proposed that would clarify the presentation of symptoms to ensure that research studies were studying the same group of children.[13]" Those aren't the only reasons, or the only given. For just a few examples, Leckman Swedo Rose say "because of the reported difficulties in accurately identifying PANDAS among patients presenting with primary tic disorders (described above) ..." and the "described above" is much more than etiology, and Singer 2011 says: "On the basis of inconclusive and conflicting scientific support for this diagnosis, a broader concept of childhood acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (CANS) is proposed" (CANS became PANS because of the age definition). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added the reference to the request quotation item above. Buster23 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:PANDAS. Also, still the issue with the sentence beginning with "Given the controversy .. " Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
Now it's both POV and unbalanced? Which is it? In either case, pick one, please, and document that here on talk, based on the wording at WP:NPOV; otherwise, how can it be fixed? Please provide specific sources and text from sources that support the tag. For example, you didn't answer the question above: if Swerdlow can't be used as an appropriate reliable source for this kind of commentary, on what basis can Swedo, Leckman Rose 2012 be used? I will gladly add the Swedo Leckman quote if you have an answer for that. I'm assuming you're aware of the different sourcing standards for medical text vs. text discussing societal implications? Please explain why you don't think Swerdlow is an adequate source for this, yet you say Swedo/Leckman/Rose is. Then we can address it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is just one. There is a lack of neutrality and a lack of balance.  What is your rationale for using the Swerdlow quote?  Why is that not WP:UNDUE?  I commented on this item several times before.  The current text seems to imply deparate parents are an issue -- yet the controversy isn't with desparate parents. "A single study of PANDAS patients showed efficacy of immunomodulatory therapy (intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or plasma exchange) to symptoms,[1] but these results are unreplicated by independent studies as of 2010."
 * This could have been reworded "An initial placebo controlled study of PANDAS patients showed significant efficacy of immunomodulary therapy (IVIG or plasma exchange) to symptoms with a reduction greater than 50% in symptom severity at 1 month and maintained through 1 year. After 12 years, the NIMH in 2010 opened a clinical trial to repeat that study."
 * The first one implies that an attempt was tried but the results were different. That is not the case. The only trial I know of that tried and failed was a trial on people who did not fit the PANDAS criteria and they did not show the same improvement.  There also was a Turkish study that showed the same efficacy as well as numberous case studies.Buster23 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * B23, I'm concerned that you don't seem to understand WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:V or WP:NPOV. First, you've tagged the article twice, and now answered the question-- which is it?  POV or unbalanced?  Tagging an article POV is a serious matter, and you are obliged to justify that on talk.  You haven't done that.  What you have doen is said that you don't like what reliable sources aay, and in an article of this nature, where we have dozens of reviews that say the same thing, that is remarkable.  The specific questions you haven't answered, and additional issues that need to be resolved, are:
 * You say that Swerdlow is not an adequate source for a comment about Societal impact, but you say that Swedo Leckman Rose 2012 is. What is the difference?  This is similar to your statement above that Singer's paper on CANS is an "editorial", yet you accept Swedo's paper on PANS as a reliable source.  What is the difference?  I am struggling to understand your interpretation of WP:V.
 * Swerdlow is a commentary. Take a peek at the first page. Swerdlow is talking about Tourettes and PANDAS is not in the article.  It would be WP:SYN to asset that Swerdlow is talking about PANDAS in the article.Buster23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See discussion continued here. Swerdlow is a valid source for the societal statement.  And you have not yet answered the question.  Why do you reject Swerdlow, yet accept Swedo, Leckman and Rose?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Swerdlow is marked as a commentary in the title page. Buster23 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot justify a POV tag because you don't like one quote about Societal impact that is repeated and expanded on in other reviews. Swerdlow's is not a solitary view: it is repeated and expanded in sources you accept.  We don't exclude text about societal impact because we don't like it or don't agree with it.
 * Agreed. Objecting because the quote is about tourettes with streptococcal infections and not about PANDAS that requires 5 criteria. Object because article is a commentary and not a review. Buster23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See discussion continued here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could potentially claim the Swerdlow quote added POV if there were another reliably sourced POV that is not represented in the article about societal impact. You have presented one option; I have said we can add it, but you haven't answered the question of why it is acceptable (Swedo Leckman Rose) when Swerdlow is not.  If there is any other commentary in any other review about societal impact, please present sources.  We don't tag articles POV because we don't like what researchers say; POV is created when a reliably source POV is excluded from the article.  Please present it, with sources.  You can't just say "I'm not sure it's just one.  There's a lack of neutrality .. " and not present sources and sourced text that represents a POV that is omitted from the article.
 * Have provided issues in the paper below. Buster23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You provided one sentence from one paper about societal impact. I'm willing to include it, but you haven't explained why you accept that source while rejecting Swerdlow.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered many times in this flow. Swerdlow is marked as a commentary on it's title page, the entire article never uses the term PANDAS or pediatric auto-immune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcus, the article is about Tourettes, there is only a single line that the editor has chosen that refers to whether TS is triggered by streptococcus.  The use of the quote is either WP:OR (i.e., making the leap that it is referring to PANDAS) or WP:UNDUE as the opinion is a particularly inflammatory one and not repeated in other reviews.  The "desparate parents" seems particularly a minority opinion.  If the article is being used solely to present this minority position, then this seems WP:UNDUE.  If you disagree, I'd like to understand why so we can use the same logic on the other articles.
 * Next, WP:OR-- you want to put wording about studies that is not the wording from the sources. We don't make up how we want to characterize studies-- that is original research.  We report what the sources say.  There is no study about PANDAS that isn't criticized, there is no study about PANDAS that doesn't have methodological issues, and if we are going to start characterizing them, we do it in the words of the sources, not our own-- and the preponderance of the sources.  We could do that-- the info is there in the reviews-- but if we do it for one, we need to do it for all, and that is going to be quite a task.  Your proposed wording would in fact create POV, because it characterizes a study in a way that most of the secondary reviews don't.  The only thing that all of the reviews consistently say about the studies is that Mell provides the strongest evidence, but even Mell isn't criticism-free.  If we want to characterize every study, we certainly can do that and I'd be willing to do that, but there are dozens of reviews that comment on all of the methodological problems of each study, so we would certainly have to do that in sandbox to be sure we get it all and to avoid creating imbalance.
 * I think you are misunderstanding my objection. I'm not trying to make any statement about Swerdlow.  I think it is a commentary and the article does not discuss PANDAS and is being used solely for the quote.  The quote is from prior to 2005 and thus not represented in more recent reviews or reference any of the research since 2004.  To make the quote be about PANDAS is WP:SYN based on what is stated in the article.  While the implication is there, it isn't in the article. Buster23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See discussion continued here. It does discuss PANDAS.  It does explain the societal impact of the hypothesis in 2005, which continues to be referenced in 2010 (Murphy et al).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it discusses streptococcal trigger of TS in a single statement. It does not discuss PANDAS (that has 5 criteria). It is possible the author is concerned about children with actual TS (i.e., not PANDAS) and that they might be incorrectly diagnosed/treated just because they have a strep infection.  Since context is not provided nor is the opinion repeated and the entirety of the article is noted as a commentary on it's title page, other quotes should be used rather than relying on this rather poort reference. Buster23 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two sources mention how the media and internet have fed the controversy; it isn't for us to say what the controversy is or isn't. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say.
 * Not debating whether there is controversy. Clearly there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster23 (talk • contribs) 07:49, March 10, 2012
 * Please decide which tag you want to leave, and then back it on talk with sources, not opinion. Otherwise, the tags need to go; they are not justified.  Justifying a POV tag means: show sources and text from sources that represent a reliable POV that is not accounted for in this article. Leaving a POV tag on an article without justifying it can be viewed as tenditious editing; please make the resolution of this issue your first priotity relative other issues on this page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has removed by POV tag (although only a day has gone by). I've been responding to all your other comments and edits on this page. I'll now focus on the POV tag and then the unbalanced tag. Definitely starting to wonder if this is worth it. Buster23 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First you tagged the article as POV and claimed that based on one correctly sourced quote which you disagree with for reasons not yet understood. See NPOV dispute:"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."  In your edit summaries when you added the POV tag, you claimed the article was unbalanced.  You justified neither on talk, or don't understand WP:SOURCES relative to a societal impact statement, and WP:INTEXT relative to attribution on quotes.  When it was pointed out to you above that you perhaps meant unbalanced per your edit summaries, you added unbalanced to the existing POV tag rather than switching it, while still not justifying POV.  And when you didn't answer whether it was unbalanced or POV, I removed the POV tag and left the unbalanced, as your edit summaries said unbalanced.  Which is it?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have provided material on this page supporting why the article is flagged as unbalanced and that the article is also lacking a neutral point of view. Perhaps we should start inviting other editors (knowledgable about wikipedia) to assist. Buster23 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the LEAD
It is a fine line between balance and WP:POV. Both are true at the moment. The lack of balance is creating a distinct POV. For example, the LEAD currently contains the line "PANDAS is not listed as a diagnosis by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)." is not balanced with the statement from Leckman in in a review for the DSM-V that "We further recommend that PANDAS be discussed in the text." Similarly, the article highlights this absence in DSM-IV but the DSM-IV was published in 1994 (see opening in while DSM-IV was revised with DSM-IV-TR, the is no reputable source provided to indicate that a discussion occurred regarding whether PANDAS was included in discussion for that text.  As such the statement of it's ommision presents an implied exclusion rather than absence of inclusion (certainly due to date in DSM-IV).  It would be difficult for the editor who introduced this statement to argue that they weren't trying to create question about the diagnosis by its absence in the DSM-IV -- otherwise, why is the statement there? Buster23 (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC) On reviewing reference, the sentence "The attractiveness of the hypothesis is that if true, new avenues of treatment and prevention might be available.[not in citation given][1] " probably should be replaced with a paraphrase of "Knowing more about the pathogenesis of PANDAS might improve our insight into pathogenetic mechanisms of treatment-resistant OCD." in Moretti2008. Buster23 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words, Leckman recommends PANDAS not become a diagnosis (it's going to be mentioned in text, is not even proposes as a diagnosis in DSM5, due out in 2013), it's not now a diagnosis, there's nothing in DSM5 indicating it's going to become a diagnosis, and we have a statement of fact in the article, being challenged as POV. Gratuitous tagging.  There is no ICD or DSM code because PANDAS is not a diagnosis. We have multiple reviews that state that it is not accepted as a valid nosological entity. The "attractiveness" statement and the proposed "knowing more about" are both original research: what source are they based on?  I've never any similar description anywhere.  Another example of gratuitous tagging. Since this statement stood in the lead (the WP:LEAD should be a summary) for many days without a correct source, I've removed it.  The lead should be written as a summary of the article, more appropriately done once the article is better filled in, and it should not include original research not reflected in any review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you say let's see if when we finish the rest of the article there is a position or a view represented that insight into the pathogensis of PANDAS will be helpful. The removal rather than editing removed a view. I agree that it should have had stronger support in the body, so absence in the body and now absence in the lead continues to under-represent the view in almost all reviews that there is support for the pathogensis that remains insufficient to prove causality. Buster23 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the Classification
The main issue in the classification session is that it is not described how high the bar is to prove causality. PANDAS is thought to be an autoimmune disorder. "For autoantibodies to be considered pathogenic, they should also be present in the target organ, passive transfer of autoantibodies should induce disease in animals, and patients’ symptoms should improve after removal of autoantibodies.87 Due to the relative paucity of postmortem data, the presence of autoantibodies in the brain of TS patients has never been explored."Another view point is that PANDAS is a subgroup of OCD and/or tic disorders. "PANDAS is a relatively new subgroup of childhood onset obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD)" similarly "S. pyogenes, which although it rarely causes CNS infections is the causative agent of ARF and Sydenham chorea, may also interact with the epithelial cells of the blood–brain barrier in a similar way, thus allowing passage of the disease-producing antibody. Alternatively, the antibody itself may affect the blood–brain barrier [Kirvan et al., 2006b, 2007]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19353683]" Buster23 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to decide if the bar is inappropriately high (original research alert, again, using sources unrelated to PANDAS): Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and making up our standards is original research. This is not a justification for a POV tag, rather another indication that we're still writing the article.  The animal model text will be written (I'm not aware that text will change classification of the hypothesized condition); we won't use an autism source to claim that PANDAS is a subgroup of tic disorders when we have no TS/tic review that agrees; and Kirvan is six years old-- we have much newer results and reviews.  Again, you haven't given any reason here to state that Classification is POV-- just that it isn't yet fully written.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you regarding Kirvan. Please name the review that you think covers the material in Kirvan. Have you read Kirvan? Buster23 (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the Proposed Mechanism
The line "Studies neither disprove nor support this hypothesis:" is false. Studies do support this hypothesis of antineuronal antibodies. The studies by Kirvan in 2006 and reported in Fujinami 2011, and in Murphy2010" Antineuronal antibody binding to basal ganglia tissue was found in both patients with PANDAS (Pavone et al. 2004) and patients with ADHD (Sanchez-Carpintero et al. 2009), whereas in SC patients, increased antineuronal antibody binding to basal ganglia tissue correlates with symptom severity (Church et al. 2002; Husby et al. 1976; Kotby et al. 1998). "

Actually the entire antibody study of Kirvan and the mouse model work by Yaddanapudi are currently missing from the Proposed Mechanism. Proof of passive transfer is missing. This is adaquately described in Murphy2010 (a way forward) with "Their results demonstrated that the immunized animals showed stereotypic behaviors as well as deficits in motor coordination, learning/memory, and social interaction. They also demonstrated that humoral immunity is necessary and sufficient to induce the syndrome when naive mice are transfused with IgG from PANDAS mice."Buster23 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:V; the statement you say is "false" is sourced, and is stated over and over in secondary review after secondary rewiew. It's not appropriate to tag an article as unbalanced or POV just because you disagree with what just about every secondary review says.  If you have a secondary review that says otherwise (I'm not aware of any, and I believe I've read every review on the topic now), you can add those views.  Yes, there are some studies that have shown some support for some aspects of the hypothesis: all of them are criticized, all of them have methodological issues, and overall the hypothesis is neither disproved nor supported.  That's about as neutral as one can get, and is a statement supported by just about every review.  This is an example of gratuitous tagging. Because you can point out one aspect that one study supports (ignoring the equal amount of support against) does not mean the sourced statement-- one that can be sourced to numerous secondary reviews-- is false.  Again, all you have pointed out is that the article isn't yet complete, and when we finish writing the "Mechanisms" section, it will include the supportive evidence, and the unsupportive evidence, but it will still conclude with the same general balanced statement that we have now, because that is what every review supports.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide the reference that says there is no support for the hypothesis. The current sentence says "Studies neither disprove nor support this hypothesis."  It is not true that there are not studies that support the hypothesis.  Please provide a reference that says that there are no studies supporting the hypothesis. Buster23 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To assist you, here are some quotes that might help with the counter position. "Perhaps the strongest evidence that GABHS may be involved in the onset of TS and OCD comes from a recent report by Mell et al.[110]" and "There is now preliminary evidence that dopamine can directly influence key immunological mechanisms that may be involved in PANDAS and this has led to a new model, as yet unproven, of PANDAS pathogenesis.[122,124]" both of these from ." Buster23 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've discussed a number of times that Mell is the strongest supportive evidence, and I'm working that in as I get through the sources in sandbox. The history of the line that "Studies neither disprove nor support the hypothesis" is that it was added in 2007 by TimVickers, at one point it was sourced to the review by Harris and Singer as "studies neither prove nor disprove", and then in 2009 was changed again to "neither disprove nor support".  I'm unable to see the distinction you are making between those two sentences, so perhaps you can explain?  We have numerous sources that say the hypothesis is neither proven nor disproven, so I'm not sure what you're saying, other than again wanting more expansion of the article to cover what supportive evidence there is, which is something I'm at work on in sandbox.  Yes, there is a new model, and there is supportive evidence for some pieces of the hypothesis, but this looks like a straw man argument-- the hypothesis overall is still neither proven nor disproven.  But again, I think we'll be in better shape on that after all recent sources are incorporated, which will take some time in sandbox because there is so much to get through. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues in Treatment
This section provides a good caution on the use of antibiotics, but fails to provide the support for why IVIG, Plasmapheresis and antibiotics are being studied. Almost every paper refers to the Perlmutter study but the magnitude of the results from that study are not discussed (i.e., that there was a > 50% improvement in symptoms in a placebo controlled blinded study). Moretti2008 for example states "Strong support for PANDAS as an immune-mediated disorder comes from the excellent response of children with PANDAS to immunotherapies (plasma exchange and IVIG) [39]."

Another view is that IVIG is unlikely to have effect on long-term tics "These possible treatment gains, however, appear to be specific to children who clearly meet the criteria for PANDAS, as plasma exchange in four children with severe chronic OCD did not result in significant improvements (Nicolson et al. 2000) and IVIG did not show efficacy for patients with tic disorders (Hoekstra et al. 2004)." (in a way forward Murphy2010)

This section also seems to fail to balance the comments regarding anecdotal evidence "Anecdotal reports of symptom improvement in PANDAS after 2–6 weeks of antibiotic treatment are intriguing and suggest other possible mechanisms besides prevention of GAS reinfection. (Murphy2010 - a way forward)"

Again, it is a balance problem here. Clearly there are at least two views here -- although only one expressed in the current article. We should at least be as balanced as Murphy. Buster23 (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Treatement needs expansion (in fact, the entire article needs expansion), but relative to what every review says, what is there so far is not unbalanced. The current text states a summary:  one study supports IVIG, but it hasn't been replicated.  That is a neutral summary, stating both sides.  Further, your argument above is a red herring:  This section provides a good caution on the use of antibiotics, but fails to provide the support for why IVIG, Plasmapheresis and antibiotics are being studied.  POV is not created by "caution against use" not being balanced by "why they are being studied".  One doesn't contradict the other, or present an alternate POV.  If you have a MEDRS-compliant source that advocates the use of antibiotics and immunotherapy as treatment (not why it is being studied), please provide it so it can be incorporated for balance.  You provide a Moretti quote which is in fact support for the "hypothesis" (and there is a good deal of evidence against, we haven't written all of that yet); that is not the same as support for "treatment".  Same for your Murphy2010 quote:  it is evidence in support of the "hypothesis" and in support of mechanisms, which will be worked in when the article is completed, and will be balanced by the equal amount of evidence against the hypothesis, which also isn't in the article yet.  Neither are statements advocating treatment.   Both will be included in the section that discusses the mechanisms and the controversy about them when that is written, and both of them will be balanced (evidence in support, evidence against-- neither are fully included as yet). You haven't made a case that the text presented so far in Treatment is unbalanced or POV: you have made a case that the article isn't yet complete.  (I agree that we still have to work in text that explains that the IVIG results may have only applied to a subset of the acute onset children; haven't gotten to that yet.) Also, we don't hype studies by describing them in our words; we use the words in reliable secondary reviews, of which we have plenty (and it will take some time to incorporate all of that info).  The sources consistently say that the IVIG study wasn't blinded (which was a large defect), and hasn't been replicated.  Characterizing it any other way, as you want, would introduce POV and original research. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue in Society and culture
I finally got a hold of Swerdlow. The very first page indicates that this is an "Invited Commentary". It is not a review. It's a commentary. Further, the word PANDAS does not appear in the article. It is true that Swerdlow is discussing Tourettes children and whether they have streptococcal infection, but there is no mention of the PANDAS criteria. Therefore the reader can only assume he's talking about whether TS is caused by strep infection. Anything else is WP:SYN. This quote belongs if anywhere on the TS page and not on the PANDAS page. Buster23 (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I would encourage other editors to read WP:MEDMOS particularly the section that says "Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors."Buster23 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "... the word PANDAS does not appear in the article" is disengenuous, when the quote specifically references the PANDAS hypothesis (there is no other hypothesesis that TS is triggered by strep).  " ... TS trigger is exposure to streptococcal infections. The ubiquity of strep throats, the tremendous societal implications of over-treatment (eg, antibiotic resistance or immunosuppressant side effects) versus medical implications of under-treatment (eg, potentially irreversible autoimmune neurologic injury) are serious matters."  Second, this is not a medical statement, it is a statement about the societal impact of the controversy, and it is a peer-reviewed medical source from a published credible expert on the very subject he is discussing.  Third, the source (outgoing chair of the Medical Advisory Board of the Tourette Syndrome Association, in a summary of the issues going forward at the end of his term wrt TS research) is most clearly a reliable source for this kind of statement. And the paper is a review, and meets MEDRS anyway.  (Again, that you label it an "editorial" or "invited commentary" contradicts your acceptance of the Swedo, Leckman Rose paper; please explain how you view the difference).  Fourth, sources are reliable in accordance with the type of text being cited; this text is appropropriately sourced (see WP:V, the parent to WP:MEDRS; specifically WP:SOURCES-- "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Also see WP:MEDRS, "Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline"). Tagging a statement with MEDRS when it doesn't even represent a medical statement, rather a societal impact statement, from a person most clearly in a position to speak to this matter, is gratuitous.  It's hard to understand why Buster23 so objects to tthis statement or the source.  It's the kind of thing that is most certainly appropriate for "Society and culture" and the issues was expanded upon by Murphy, Kurlan and Leckman, .  We don't keep something out of an article just because we don't like it. Re I would encourage other editors to read WP:MEDMOS particularly the section that says "Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors", please read up on how to correctly attribute quotations on Wikipedia.  Whenever a full ssentence or more is quoted, the author should be listed in the citation as well as by providing in-text attribution (see WP:INTEXT).  There was nothing in the text that "hyped" the quote.  I'm struggling to understand why Buster23 objects to a quote from a credible expert on the topic which so aptly describes the societal issues surrounding the PANDAS controversy.  Finally, you haven't explained why this quote unbalances the article or makes it POV: if there is an alternate published POV that is in disagreement with this statement about societal impact, please provide the source.  At any rate, I have added the societal portion to the Sandbox version (remainder goes under mechanism etc.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing tagging
First, please see the following pages:
 * 1) WP:INTEXT (exact quotes of a sentence or more are attributed inline) and WP:SUBSTANTIATE (how to attribute statements of opinion)
 * 2) WP:SOURCES ("The appropriateness of any source depends on the context") and WP:MEDRS ("Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline").
 * 3) WP:NPOV "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." What is the significant viewpoint of a WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that has not been included in this article, allowing for the fact that large chunks of the article have yet to be written?  Which statements are unbalanced, considering only the briefest of statements are included so far, and what is presented so far, presents both sides? Also, NPOV does not mean the absence of POV; it means we represent fairly the POVs of the reliable sources.  The reliable sources in this case generally share a POV (PANDAS is controversial, PANDAS is unproven, evidence is mixed, etc), which is represented here.
 * 4) WP:UNDUE, please specifically explain what viewpoint is excluded relative to what is written so far in the article; that the article is as yet mostly unwritten does not mean that what is there so far is unbalanced, and no example above does this.
 * 5) WP:ADVOCACY, not liking what is repeated in every recent review on the topic (we have many, and they are in remarkable agreement) is not a reason to gratuitiously tag an article.  A POV tag should be a last resort.  I suggest that your concerns have more to do with the incompleteness of the article, and it is going to be difficult to continue writing without a better understanding of how sources are used on Wikipedia.  Might I suggest that going forward, you use inline templates to highlight specific places where you have concerns?   Tagging an entire article because you disagree with one well sourced quote is gratuitous and discouraged.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's start with WP:FRINGE. The quoted comment by Swerdlow is a minority opinion not raised in any  reliable source.  Swerdlow itself fails in WP:MEDRS as it is not a reliable secondary source and not a review. It is titled as a commentary.  Futher it is WP:SYN and WP:OR to determine that TS triggered by streptococcus must be referring to PANDAS. There are 4 other criteria that must be applied to be considered PANDAS and it is not clear whether Swerdlow is referring to TS in general or the specific subset of those patients who meet the PANDAS critiera.  There is no reference to PANDAS in the article. You say this is disingenuous but I am trying to follow the exact rules you are raising when discussing other papers.  If we can't systematically apply the same rules, then this raises an issue.  Buster23 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You previously described Singer (a well-respected TS researcher and PANDAS expert) as not knowing what a carrier is. You've several times characterized journal published statements as false.  And now, a view endorsed and expanded in another journal article by TS researchers from three different institutions (one btw that is well understood by anyone who has attended TSA conferences, workshops, symposiums, etc), from an outgoing chairperson of the Medical Advisory Board of the Tourette Syndrome Association (which is quite a fine MAB), as "fringe"?  This is getting out of hand.  I realize this is the only article you have worked on on Wikipedia, but I don't think you have a good understanding of what WP:FRINGE entails.  Your statements above also indicate some lack of knowledge of TS or its research (perhaps your area of knowledge is more OCD-related?):  there was no other "TS triggered by streptococcus" discussion in 2005 that wasn't PANDAS (although not coincidentally, now in 2012, we do see Tourette syndrome dropped from the new PANS proposal), and to attempt to keep a very on-topic and relevant quote out of this article because Swerdlow was deferntial in critique of professional colleagues is an extraordinary measure I don't understand.  What is it about that very plain statement, that so well reflects the societal impact of that controversy, that troubles you?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I think your comments are moving away from the article. I wonder if we could get back to the article.  We have been discussing sources and what we seek in the sources.  I'm objecting to Swerdlow for many reasons (listed multiple times). I'm glad you've been doing some original research on whether there was or was not other "TS triggered by streptococcus" in 2005 -- however, that is WP:OR and WP:SYN. This is a lot of effort on a single quote. Can you state why this quote (and none of the others from the reliable medical sources) is so important to the content of the article?  It certainly is a quote I'm objecting to for the reasons that PANDAS is not mentioned in the article, the article is flagged as a commentary, the review is from 2005 and we have much more recent material, etc.  Do you ever give on these things? Buster23 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On WP:UNDUE, the significance of the study that started the whole PANDAS discussion is frankly given almost no text. This is remarkable as almost every article refers to the perlmutter study and highlights the significance of the results.  While there were criticisms of the study, there has been no counter evidence to the study.  Further, the actual antibody studies are entirely missing from the current paper.  The statement that "studies neither disprove nor support this hypothesis" is not true.  This creates a POV that there is not support for PANDAS when that is not true.  You and I have agreed that the concensus of the reliable references agree that there is supportive evidence of the PANDAS hypothesis but that it is just is not strong enough to prove causality.  Kirvan2006, for example, states "Anti-neuronal antibodies have also been demonstrated in PANDAS raising the possibility that development of clinical manifestations in Sydenham’s chorea and PANDAS may be mediated through a similar antibody-directed mechanism of pathogenesis [70,71]. Recently, we have shown that PANDAS serum IgG reacted with the GlcNAc epitope of the streptococcal GAC and lysoganglioside GM1 as in Sydenham’s chorea [72]."  Buster23 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure anyone trying to read this talk page will grow tired of the repetition, but I've explained the sandbox progress several times on this page. Instead of agreeing to collaborate in sandbox so we can progress faster, you continue to call journal cited statements from well respected researchers "false".  Partial (and always disputed) support for one piece of the hypothesis is not the same as support for the entire hypothesis.  These are straw man arguments.  Yes, there is some supportive evidence and some unsupportive evidence:  the hypothesis overall is unsupported.  Do you want to work together or not?  If you want to cover all of that evidence in detail, I was halfway through doing that, but the article is not biased because it merely summarized what all sources say without going into the detail on each piece of each study.  I'll be glad to continue doing that in sandbox, if you are collaborating; if not, I seem to have wasted my time this week.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SG, I must say I am trying to collaborate with you and have spent an enormous amount of time trying to do that here on the talk page. We seem to disagree on something as simple as a single quote from Swerdlow.  You've asked me why and I've replied with my reasons -- it is from a commentary, the commentary does not contain the word PANDAS, the quote implies he's talking about PANDAS (which might be true) but that isn't in the article, the topic of desparate parents is not repeated in other reliable sources, there is no study showing how the decision was reached, and we have more recent reviews that provide a more holistic view of how the controversy has impacted parents and researchers.  Buster23 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)