Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 22 December 2009

Gulf War syndrome is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by WVBluefield (talk) at 16:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Medicine: Genetics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: N/A (March 3, 2009). "What was happening in the world the last time the market was this low". Foreign Policy.

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Article Rewrite

I am currently re-writing this article to bring it up to a more appropriate standard for the nature and significance of the topic. Much of the previous version was duplicate material, information not relevant to the topic, rampant speculation, or worse, garbage from the junk science industry. Considering the number of high quality sources for this topic they are just not acceptable sources.

Please discuss changes or issues with the new version here. If you think anything is missing from my new and improved version, dont worry, I will be adding lots more in the weeks to come. WVBluefield (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note at WP:MEDA. You may wish to request a peer review or to nominate it for Good Article status.

What you have looks pretty good, but it feels a bit incomplete -- or perhaps it only looks that way because of the organization. I suggest reading WP:LEAD about not introducing details into the introduction that aren't repeated and expanded on later. You might consider WP:MEDMOS#Sections for ideas about other topics to include.

In terms of FA, the capitalization of headings doesn't conform to WP:MSH, and the citation formats must be absolutely uniform to reach FA. It's not necessary for them to use "this" or "that" style -- you're allowed to make up your own style -- but the style you use must be consistently implemented in every single citation. Also, FA will require at least one citation per paragraph.

Also, the {{linkfarm}} needs to be weeded, and the article probably needs a section about the political/social aspects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I will work on this over the next few days and resubmit. WVBluefield (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove these three paragraphs?:

A 2001 study of 15,000 February 1991 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times more likely to have children with birth defects. After examination of children's medical records two years later, the birth defect rate increased by more than 20%:

"Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans."

In a study of U.K. troops, "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs."

1. Kang, H.; et al. (2001). "Pregnancy Outcomes Among U.S. Gulf War Veterans: A Population-Based Survey of 30,000 Veterans". Annals of Epidemiology. 11 (7): 504–511. doi:10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00245-9. PMID 11557183. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
2. Department of Veterans Affairs (2003) "Q's & A's - New Information Regarding Birth Defects," Gulf War Review 12(1), p. 10.
3. Doyle, P., et al. (2004) "Miscarriage, stillbirth and congenital malformation in the offspring of UK veterans of the first Gulf war," International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(1), pp. 74-86; PMID 15075150.

Isn't that a pretty significant finding from the military's chief epidemiologists? 99.27.200.154 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nov 2008 report found that while there was an increase in birth defects, the increase was statistically insignificant and I cant really square away some of the more specific %’s with the material cited. Could you elaborate? WVBluefield (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that birth defects have been statistically insignificant refers to the specific sub-categories of birth defects, where the sample size was too small to make a statistically significant claim. Birth defects in general, such as are produced by a general mutagen like uranyl, were reported at significant rates both in troops and civilians. Have any mutagens or teratogens other than uranium even been considered as potentially responsible? Here are some excerpts from the Nov. 2008 report:

Although Gulf War illness is the most prominent condition affecting Gulf War veterans, it is just one health issue to be addressed in the larger context of the health of Gulf War veterans. Other Gulf War-related health issues of importance include rates of diagnosable medical conditions and post-war mortality among Gulf War veterans, and questions related to the risk of birth defects and other health problems in veterans’ family members. (p. 24; PDF p. 34)

The three studies most representative of Gulf War era veterans in the U.S. and U.K. have all indicated significant, but modest, excess rates of birth defects in children of Gulf War veterans. (p. 50)

News articles have reported that rates of cancer and birth defects in Iraq increased dramatically during the 1990s, specifically in regions where the greatest quantity of DU was used in the Gulf War. Conference reports describing an increased incidence of congenital anomalies in Basrah and increased numbers of cancer cases, both in Iraqi military personnel who served in the war and in four Iraqi hospitals, lend some support to these contentions. (p. 88)

Which of the percentages do you think are hard to square with the epidemiologists' reports? 99.60.1.71 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Statistically insignificant was a poor word choice as it has a defined meaning, the text says that the rates are still within the normal range.

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to birth defects and pregnancy outcomes in Gulf War veterans, due to the diversity and limitations of study results reported to date. The three studies most representative of Gulf War era veterans in the U.S. and U.K. have all indicated significant, but modest, excess rates of birth defects in children of Gulf War veterans. Information on specific types of birth defects has been inconsistent, however, and overall rates are still within the normal range found in the general population.

Considering the shape the article was in previously, I am hesitant to read too much into the sources that isnt explicitly stated. The Basra information you cited has no formal studies and since is not specifically about GWS. WVBluefield (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Isn't this just a type of PTSD? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some cases might be, but many have nothing to do with PTSD. WVBluefield (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Similar syndromes have been seen as an after effect of other conflicts — for example, 'shell shock' after World War I, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after the Vietnam War." These are all different names for PTSD.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s part of the controversy surrounding it. Some of it is undoubtedly PTSD or anxiety driven however a link between some of the physical non-psychosomatic ailments and exposure to nerve gas and other chemical agents has been established. WVBluefield (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a few sections

The classification section is were you are going to want to discuss how this condition is categories. Who it is recognized by ( WHO, DSM4, etc ). And how it relates to other conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Before a GA review will be able to continue classification needs to be fleshed out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

medically unexplained symptoms

The opening sentence, "Gulf War syndrome (GWS) or Gulf War illness (GWI) is an illness reported by combat veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War typified by a range of medically unexplained symptoms.", may need to be reviewed.

Medically unexplained symptoms is term that can have a physiological connotation and is favored by specific psychological researchers. While MUPS may be valid wording for subsections discussing these points, having it in the lead without discussion in a subsection is irregular.

From the medically unexplained symptoms article:

"MUPS may be synonymous with somatization disorder PMID 10489969 or psychosomatic illness, where the cause or perception of symptoms is mental in origin, or may overlap these terms or be a "lower threshold variant" of them.PMID 18040099 Because several definitions of both somatization and MUPS exist, and the usage of both terms is inconsistent in medical literature and practice, MUPS is sometimes used interchangeably with somatization and functional somatic symptoms.PMID 16025867" Ward20 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• B-Class medical genetics articles
• Unknown-importance medical genetics articles
• Medical genetics task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press