Talk:Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion

Introduction
The introductory statement presents malignancies as the principal cause of SIADH, which is not only incorrect but deeply damaging as it has most likely alarmed many patients with SIADH. The etiology of SIADH is not completely understood and often considered to be idiopathic. However, we do know what risk factors for the development of the syndrome are and while malignancies including small cell lung carcinoma are risk factors, they are very rare. More common risk factors include medications (SSRIs, amiodarone and NSAIDs among others), age greater than 50, pneumonia and disorders of the central nervous system. To lead readers to believe malignancies are the likely underlying cause for an issue that is usually the result of relatively benign problem is incredibly irresponsible. I hope that this article is corrected soon, and I hope the author checks the veracity of his/her information in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.128.74 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

History
http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/reprint/12/12/2860 - reprint of first report

this is very common condition in routine clinical medicine. but findthe cuse is big chanllange.

Naming
Isn't the correct name "syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion"? -- C opper K ettle  05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be changed. If it has indeed been changed recently to "hypersecretion" from "secretion" this calls for a note. Pradyumna k m (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed (moved the article)--Sav_vas (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of Addison-like images
File:A 69-Year-Old Female with Tiredness and a Persistent Tan 01.png and File:A 69-Year-Old Female with Tiredness and a Persistent Tan 02.png -- but I'm not sure whether it is Addison's disease or SIADH. Have not read the article thoroughly. Use at your discretion. -- C opper K ettle  05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessive ADH does not result HYPOnatremia, but it results HYPERNATREMIA.
This is a syndrome characterized by excessive release of antidiuretic hormone (ADH or vasopressin) from the posterior pituitary gland or another source. The result is hyponatremia.

Please correct the hyponatremia to hypernatremia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yama fakhri (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SIADH causes HYPOnatremia not HYPERnatremia, since the nephrons don't allow the loss of as much water as they should. They still lose the sodium, so since the sodium level drops but the water level doesn't drop as fast, HYPOnatremia delvelops.  As far as I could see, the article does call, it HYPOnatremia, which is correct.D.c.camero (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Diagnosis criteria changed?
I thought the core differentiating feature between SIADH and increased secretion of ADH due to other causes (CHF, cirrhosis, and nephrotic syndrome) was that in SIADH euvolemia is maintained while in the latter hypervolemia is seen. (The article says "Maintained hypervolemia" under "Diagnosis" Pradyumna k m (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Occurrence in Endurance Sports
I don't have the source handy, so I can't edit the article right now. But, there is increasing awareness of the dangers of hyponatremia due to excess intake of fluids among marathon, triathlon and other endurance athletes. SIADH has been a factor in some cases of fatal exercise-associated hyponatremic hydroencephalapathy. SlowJog (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SIADH causes euvolemia or hypervolemia?
Does SIADH cause euvolemic hyponatremia or hypervolemic hyponatremia? Or both?--Sav_vas (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Euvolaemic, apparently. http://www.samsca.com/etiology-pathogenesis.aspx "(SIADH) is the most common cause of euvolemic hyponatremia." I can't find any references for 'SIADH and hypervolaemia'. FreeT (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

New article section suggestion: Differential diagnosis
It would be nice if someone could translate this German differential diagnosis table and add it in the English article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sav vas (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Demeclocycline - negative write-up in article
The section on treatment gives Demeclocycline a bad press. The claim that it causes nephrogenic DI in 70% of patients - surely that's not a side effect, but the treatment effect! i.e. it's desirable in the context of siADH? Reads like an ad for the Vaptans, really.

I have gone ahead and added this  (James McNally)    (talkpage)   15:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove 'Requires Expansion' template
Can the "requires expansion" template be removed from 'signs and symptoms'? FreeT (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, because right now it's just a random list of terms. It needs to be expanded, turned into proper text, and referenced. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How to pronounce SIADH?
How to pronounce SIADH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.239 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an initialism, so it should be pronounced letter by letter, and certainly not as a single syllable. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead - recent editing
I have completed a revision of the Lead. It now has 4 paragraphs comprised of 3, 6, 1, and 2 sentences, respectively. Please judge it for clarity, organization, accuracy and readability. Regards - IiKkEe (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

4 types, from outdated source
User:IiKkEe - this article is all sourced from very old refs and it all needs updating. The "types" thing yes has a root in the 2007 ref but type C is completely inaccurate. Please start using the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid talking about this article being all sourced from very old refs and it all needs updating (no disagreement there). I stumbled into this Article on Sep 15 - 2 days ago - and have done 19 edits including a rewrite of every sentence in the Lead. Glad to have some company. For now, let's deal with one issue at a time please. It's clear we have some differences of opinion, so let's work toward a resolution.


 * The "types" thing is from the 2007 NEJM review article. It is discussed in the video clip. Is it your position that this section should be deleted because you personally do not agree with the data presented in Fig 1 regarding Type C? If so, what is your reference for that position? And are you saying it's not a worthy reference because its 10 years old? If you know about a more current reference, please provide.


 * We have differences of opinion regarding the placement of one sentence in the Lead; and with where to put the sentence regarding a third name for the syndrome. Let's defer those until we resolve issue #1.


 * As you continue to edit, please take advantage of the opportunity to explain the reason justifying your edits. "Restored" and "Moved back per MEDMOS" don't really provide insight into why you did what you did, so I can agree and move on, or disagree and Talk here with you.   Regards    IiKkEe (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
The sourcing on this article is very outdated. Am in the process of finding new refs and reading them to update this whole thing, and turn it more into prose. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)