User:Garrondo/sandbox

'''THIS IS MY PERSONAL SANDBOX, WHERE I DEVELOP TEXTS BEFORE ADDING THEM TO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. ANY INFORMATION FOUND HERE MAY BE COPYRIGHTED. THIS KIND OF INFORMATION IS ONLY STORED HERE TEMPORALLY AND FOR RESEARCH AIMS.'''

Explanation: I usually copy abstracts from articles I am working with in wikipedia from pubmed and copy them here for an easier editing job, eliminating them as soon as I post my edition in the wikipedia article.

Cajal
Posible ref: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1906/cajal.html

citarla como:

From Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967

MS Treatments
Citat RCO:.

Alt
J Neurol. 2008 Dec;255 Suppl 6:82-6. .

Complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis.

Apel-Neu A, Zettl UK.

Source

Department of Neurology, University of Rostock, Gehlsheimer Str. 20, 18147 Rostock, Germany. annett.apel@med.uni-rostock.de

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is often used by patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) but has been disregarded in research until lately. Various confounding factors on CAM utilisation exist, though have hardly been investigated. Besides socio-demographic variables like education, income, gender and age, illness-related factors like severity of disease are discussed. Furthermore, the important role of psychological factors on CAM utilisation is described. In particular, coping strategies such as "rumination", "search for information" and "search for meaning in religion" are more often reported by CAM users than non-users and have important impact on CAM utilisation. Neurol Clin. 2011 May;29(2):465-80. .

Complementary and alternative medicine and multiple sclerosis.

Bowling AC.

Source

MS Service, Colorado Neurological Institute, 701 East Hampden Avenue, #320, Englewood, CO 80113, USA. abneurocare@qwestoffice.net

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by one-half to three-fourths of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Although it is used widely, CAM may not be discussed during a conventional medical visit. In MS, CAM therapies exhibit a broad range of risk-benefit profiles; some of these therapies are low risk and possibly beneficial, whereas others are ineffective, dangerous, or unstudied. Health professionals who provide objective and practical information about the risks and benefits of CAM therapies may improve the quality of care for those with MS.

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 21439454 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Int MS J. 2006 Jan;13(1):5-12, 4.

A review of the evidence for efficacy of complementary and alternative medicines in MS.

Huntley A.

Source

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK. alyson.huntley@pms.ac.uk

Abstract

The role of complementary and alternative medicine for the management of MS symptoms lies in palliative care: this is borne out by the popularity of such therapies among people with MS. This article describes some of the major complementary and alternative therapies used to treat MS symptoms and whether their use is supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. For the vast majority of complementary and alternative regimens researched, there are only one or two trials per therapy. Thus, it is difficult to recommend any specific modality. Several trials have investigated linoleic acid and its derivatives, magnetic field therapy and cannabis extracts. All three approaches appear to be of use in ameliorating MS symptoms but more research is needed. Other issues that should be considered by MS patients when taking a complementary or alternative therapy are discussed.

PMID: 16420779 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cog
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2012 Oct;12(5):618-27. .

Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis.

Lovera J, Kovner B.

Source

Department of Neurology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-New Orleans, 1542 Tulane Ave, Rm 718A, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA. jlover@lsuhsc.edu

Abstract

Cognitive impairment (CI) is a serious complication of multiple sclerosis (MS), and the domains affected are well established, but new affected domains such as theory of mind are still being identified. The evidence that disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) improve and prevent the development of CI in MS is not solid. Recent studies on the prevalence of CI in MS among people treated with DMT, although not as solid as studies completed prior to DMT introduction, suggest that CI remains a problem even among people on DMTs and that CI occurs frequently even at the very earliest stages of MS. Functional MRI studies and studies using diffusion tractography show that the impact of lesions on cognition depends on the particular cortical networks affected and their plasticity. Cognitive rehabilitation and L-amphetamine appear promising symptomatic treatments for CI in MS, while, cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have failed, and data on Ginkgo and exercise are limited. We need more work to understand better CI in MS and develop treatments for this serious complication of MS.

PMID: 22791241 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 5;(10):CD008876. treatment for memory disorder in multiple sclerosis.

He D, Zhou H, Guo D, Hao Z, Wu B.

Source

Department of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Guiyang Medical College, No. 28, Gui Yi Street, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China, 550004.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Memory disorder is one of the most frequent cognitive impairment and has a great negative impact on the quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). A few pharmacologic agents appear to be effective to memory disorder in patients with MS in some existing randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the absolute and comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of pharmacologic treatments for memory disorder in adult patients with MS.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group's Trials Register (17 January 2011), PsycINFO (January 1980 - April Week 4 2011) and CBMdisc (January 1978 - 6 April 2011), and checked reference lists of identified articles, searched some relevant journals manually, registers of clinical trials and published abstracts of conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All double-blind, randomized controlled parallel trials on pharmacologic treatment versus placebo treatment or no treatment or one or more pharmacologic treatments, without restrictions regarding dose, route of administration and frequency, administration duration≥12 weeks for memory disorder in adult patients with MS who display at least mild memory impairment at 0.5 standard deviations below age -and-sex-based normative data on a validated memory scale. Adequately randomized or quasi-randomized trials were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among review authors. Principal investigators of included studies were contacted for additional data or confirmation.

MAIN RESULTS:

Four RCTs involving adult patients with all the types of MS and at least mild memory impairment were included, evaluating donepezil, Ginkgo biloba (GB), memantine and rivastigmine respectively vs placebo in treating memory disorder in MS.There were no serious adverse events in intervention groups.The quality of the included studies was overall low, some of important variables were not matched between groups at baseline, the samples of subjects were relatively small and the follow-up was short. Three RCTs which evaluate GB, memantine, rivastigmine respectively vs placebo are currently ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Until the results of ongoing studies are available, there is no convincing evidence to support pharmacologic intervention as an effective treatment for memory disorder in MS patients. However, donepezil, Ginkgo biloba, memantine and rivastigmine resulted to be safe and well tolerated as adverse events such as nausea, diarrhea, somnolence, and constipation were not frequent, while no serious adverse effects were reported. Future high quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

PMID: 21975787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2012 Nov;21(11):1679-99. . Epub 2012 Aug 9. Treatment of cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Patti F.

Source

University Hospital Catania, Multiple Sclerosis Centre Sicilia Region, First Neurology Clinic, Neuroscience Section, GF Ingrassia Department, Via Santa Sofia 78, 95123 Catania, Italy. patti@unict.it

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Identifying and treating cognitive impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is increasingly recognized as a crucial step in selecting the most appropriate treatment for the individual. Currently, the neuropsychological tests used to assess patients are time-consuming and require specialist training to administer; consequently, cognitive impairment in MS is underdiagnosed. Many treatments are available for MS, including disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) and symptomatic therapies, but what are their effects on cognitive performance?

AREAS COVERED:

This article will review published studies describing the cognitive effects of DMDs and symptomatic treatments for MS.

EXPERT OPINION:

Some DMDs may improve cognitive performance in patients with MS. None of the symptomatic drug treatments reviewed showed positive effects on cognitive performance, with the possible exception of L-amphetamine, which may improve memory in patients with existing deficits, and methylphenidate, on which more data are needed. Cognitive rehabilitation can improve cognitive performance, but experience with these techniques is limited. Treatment for patients with MS and cognitive impairment should, therefore, include a DMD in combination with a pharmacological or perhaps non-pharmacological cognitive-enhancement strategy. However, the methods used to diagnose cognitive impairment, and to assess the effect of treatment on function over time and need to be refined.

PMID: 22876911 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;3:CD008754. .

Memory Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis.

das Nair R, Ferguson H, Stark DL, Lincoln NB.

Source

Institute of Work, Health & Organisations, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.roshan.nair@nottingham.ac.uk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Impairments in cognitive function, particularly memory, are common in patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and these can potentially affect their ability to complete functional activities. There is evidence from single-case or small group studies that memory rehabilitation can be beneficial for patients with MS but findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for patients with MS who have memory problems, and the effect of such interventions on functional abilities.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group's Specialised Trials Register (last searched February 2011), and the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, latest issue), NIHR Clinical Research Network database, MEDLINE (1966 to February 2011), EMBASE (1980 to February 2011), CINAHL (1982 to April 2010), PsycINFO (1980 to February 2011), AMED (1985 to April 2010), British Nursing Index (1985 to April 2010) and CAB Abstracts (1973 to April 2010). We handsearched relevant journals and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We selected RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for patients with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared to a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and confirmed through group discussion. Studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS were excluded unless a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results could be identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Four reviewers were involved in study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Investigators of primary studies were contacted for further information where required. Data analysis and synthesis were conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. A 'best evidence' synthesis was performed based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included.

MAIN RESULTS:

Eight studies, involving 521 participants, were included. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low; three of the studies were evaluated to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology. Meta-analysis showed no significant effects of memory rehabilitation on memory function or functional abilities immediately or long-term. No significant effect of intervention was found, either immediately or long-term, on subjective reports of memory problems [Standard mean difference (SMD) 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.21 to 0.34) and SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.31)] respectively; on objective memory [SMD 0.24 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.49) and SMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.47)]; on mood [SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.17) and SMD 0.13 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.36)]; and on Quality of Life [SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.39) and SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.17)]. On Activities of Daily Living, no immediate treatment effect was observed [SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.33)], but on long-term follow up the intervention group performed significantly worse than the control group [SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.03)].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is no evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on memory function or functional abilities in patients with MS. However, this conclusion has been arrived because of the limited quality of some of the primary studies reviewed in this area. Further robust, RCTs of higher methodological quality and better quality of reporting are needed.

PMID: 22419337 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Varios
Diseases DALY WHO maps Anton Raderscheidt ]]
 * {PD-US-not renewed} (Añadir otra barra en cada lado para usar)
 * [[User:Danglingdiagnosis/Involuntary health consequences|Discussion on psychological tests and openness of information

Pingus (video game)

imagen de modelos de raton en PD (De plos): http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007878

Historical images
Jubilotheque, the UPMC scientific digital Library

Sobre PD: imagen y descripción en Nouvelle iconographie de la Salpétrière [Tome 1]: pag 40 (Lámina VII): Además debe haber 2 imágenes más en articulos previos de charcot de la misma mujer en distintos momentos de evolución de la enfermedad.

Arch Neurol. 1991 Apr;48(4):421-5. Visual art in the neurologic career of Jean-Martin Charcot.

Jean-Martin Charcot, the world's first chaired professor of neurology, incorporated visual art into his daily practice of neurology. Art served as scientific documentation and was a pivotal tool in the development and dissemination of Charcot's clinicoanatomic method. Although Charcot drew extensively in clinical and laboratory studies, very few of these visual documents have ever been published or are currently available for public study. Charcot was central to the incorporation of medical photographs into the study of neurologic disease and relied heavily on visual material in his capacity as an international teacher. Art also misguided Charcot's career when he relied heavily on artwork in his attempt to convince critics that disorders seen at the Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France, were independent of his suggestive influence.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

CCSVI
Multiple sclerosis a vascular etiology


 * CSVI-MS. A swiss research-tracking group

Stroop
Colin MacLeod website

Experimental findings
Stimuli in Stroop paradigms can be divided in 3 groups: neutral, congruent and incongruent. Neutral stimuli comprise those in which only the text (similarly to stimuli 1 of Stroop's experiment), or color (similarly to stimuli 3 of Stroop's experiment) are displayed. Congruent stimuli are those in which the ink color and color name refer to the same concept (for example the "red" word written in red). Incongruent stimuli are those in which ink color and concept differ. Three experimental findings are recurrently found in stroop experiments. A first finding is semantic interference, consisting in the fact that naming the ink of neutral stimuli is faster than in incongruent conditions. It is called semantic interference since it is usually accepted that the relationship in meaning between ink color and word is at the origin of the interference. Semantic facilitation defines the finding that naming the ink of congruent stimuli is faster than with neutral stimuli. The third finding is that both semantic interference and facilitation dissapear when the task consists in reading the word instead of naming the ink. It has been sometimes called Stroop asyncrony, and has been explained by a reduced automaticitation when naming colors compared to reading.

Interesting images gallery
User:Garrondo/Sandbox/Interesting images

Wikipedia and medicine
This is a database of articles related to the coverage of medicine on Wikipedia. For a broader scope of studies see Academic studies of Wikipedia.

2013

 * -QUALITY SPECIFIC-DOWNLOADED (STRANGE FORMAT)
 * -DESCARGADO-GENERAL INFO INTERVIEW 
 * -DESCARGADO-GENERAL INFO INTERVIEW 
 * -DESCARGADO-GENERAL INFO INTERVIEW 

2012
____
 * -QUALITY SPECIFIC-DOWNLOADED
 * -USE BY CITIZENS-QUALITATIVE-DOWNLOADED
 * -Quality of Spanish Wikipedia-downloaded
 * -Quality specific- with high quality of wikipedia, but only measured in two FA.
 * -USE BY CLINICIANS-DOWNLOADED-REVIEW WITH INTERESTING SOURCES-SPECIFIC SECTION IN WIKIPEDIA
 * -Quality of Spanish Wikipedia-downloaded
 * -Quality specific- with high quality of wikipedia, but only measured in two FA.
 * -USE BY CLINICIANS-DOWNLOADED-REVIEW WITH INTERESTING SOURCES-SPECIFIC SECTION IN WIKIPEDIA
 * -Quality specific- with high quality of wikipedia, but only measured in two FA.
 * -USE BY CLINICIANS-DOWNLOADED-REVIEW WITH INTERESTING SOURCES-SPECIFIC SECTION IN WIKIPEDIA
 * -Quality specific- with high quality of wikipedia, but only measured in two FA.
 * -USE BY CLINICIANS-DOWNLOADED-REVIEW WITH INTERESTING SOURCES-SPECIFIC SECTION IN WIKIPEDIA
 * -Quality specific- with high quality of wikipedia, but only measured in two FA.
 * -USE BY CLINICIANS-DOWNLOADED-REVIEW WITH INTERESTING SOURCES-SPECIFIC SECTION IN WIKIPEDIA
 * -USE BY CLINICIANS-DOWNLOADED-REVIEW WITH INTERESTING SOURCES-SPECIFIC SECTION IN WIKIPEDIA


 * -IN SPANISH-DOWNLOADED-GENERAL REVIEW OF WIKIPEDIA AND HEALTH EMPHASIZING ITS IMPORTANCE FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION
 * -DOWNLOADED-IN SPANISH-ONLY COMPARING SPANISH AND ENGLISH WIKI ALTHOUGH STRANGE METHOD AND RESULTS.

2011

 * -NO ACCESS
 * -DOWNLOADED-QUALITY SPECIFIC-Estudio muy limitado en el enfoque (solo evalúan calidad de 5 Estatinas como ejemplo de medicamento), pero sin embargo análisis bastante pormenorizado. Conclusión general es que resultados son bastante variables según los artículos
 * -Muy interesante: en primer lugar su hipotesis era que resultados de wiki iban a ser peores, y luego fueron iguales o mejores. Además usan cuestionario a priori sobre 10 artículos. Buena revista. 
 *  Quality specific-Centrado en estudiar calidad de referencias en artículos de salud. Evaluación muy positiva.
 * -DOWNLOADED-QUALITY SPECIFIC-Estudio muy limitado en el enfoque (solo evalúan calidad de 5 Estatinas como ejemplo de medicamento), pero sin embargo análisis bastante pormenorizado. Conclusión general es que resultados son bastante variables según los artículos
 * -Muy interesante: en primer lugar su hipotesis era que resultados de wiki iban a ser peores, y luego fueron iguales o mejores. Además usan cuestionario a priori sobre 10 artículos. Buena revista. 
 *  Quality specific-Centrado en estudiar calidad de referencias en artículos de salud. Evaluación muy positiva.
 * -Muy interesante: en primer lugar su hipotesis era que resultados de wiki iban a ser peores, y luego fueron iguales o mejores. Además usan cuestionario a priori sobre 10 artículos. Buena revista. 
 *  Quality specific-Centrado en estudiar calidad de referencias en artículos de salud. Evaluación muy positiva.

__________
 * -Quality general-It gives a rating of use to wikipedia.

2010

 * -Downloaded
 * -Congress abstract-downloaded proccedings-Poster es el abstract de artículo posterior.
 * -Downloaded
 * -Congress abstract-downloaded proccedings-Poster es el abstract de artículo posterior.
 * -Congress abstract-downloaded proccedings-Poster es el abstract de artículo posterior.
 * -Congress abstract-downloaded proccedings-Poster es el abstract de artículo posterior.

____
 * : Comments on other medical wikis in a qualitative fashion

2009

 * -Muy teórico (y aburrido)
 * -Use by clinicians-letter to editor. Basicamente respuesta a una encuesta de quien lo usa y quien no. Muy pobre.
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access
 * letter to editor; no access

___________


 * -Noticia sobre un informe de negocios de pago. La noticia cita porcentage de uso entre médicos. Basada en:

The following 3 are letters to the editor that critique using wikipedia as a medical source in a peer-reviewed medical article

2008
___
 * -quality specific-Tono muy negativo pese a resultados similares a la otra fuente (mucho menores solo en cuanto a dosificación; que se dejan fuera a proposito).
 *  QUALITY GENERAL-MINIMAL INFO IN WIKIPEDIA-DOWNLOADED
 * Congress abstract; no access
 * -quality specific-Tono muy negativo pese a resultados similares a la otra fuente (mucho menores solo en cuanto a dosificación; que se dejan fuera a proposito).
 *  QUALITY GENERAL-MINIMAL INFO IN WIKIPEDIA-DOWNLOADED
 * Congress abstract; no access
 *  QUALITY GENERAL-MINIMAL INFO IN WIKIPEDIA-DOWNLOADED
 * Congress abstract; no access
 *  QUALITY GENERAL-MINIMAL INFO IN WIKIPEDIA-DOWNLOADED
 * Congress abstract; no access
 * -QUALITY GENERAL-ONLY BRIEF MENTION ON WIKIPEDIA-DOWNLOADED
 * -PROCCEDINGS IN CONGRESS-DOWNLOADED-Quality specific: 3 articles and ad hoc scale, compared between wiki and other web pages. 

2007

 * NO ACCESS
 * NO ACCESS

____________________


 * - Solo centrado en wiki alternativa. Teniendo en cuenta los 6 años del artículo ha podido cambiar mucho.
 * -No access; no abstract
 * news item
 * -No access-Mentions that some specialists are write in wikipedia.

2005
___
 * -Downloaded, interesting since it is the first known
 * -No dice nada pero primer documento en revista médica.

de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Medizin/Presse

Other interesting to get

 * -Spanish authors-No access

Curiosities
Ricin received 1300000 (most viewed medicine article) visits in May due to news of a poisonous letter sent to Obama

Other
Draft