Talk:Postmenopausal confusion

In general, please review WP:MEDMOS (on the structure of medical articles) and WP:MEDRS on medical sourcing guidelines. I have removed some (but not all) of the primary sources, removed some editorializing, restructured the article to conform with MEDMOS, removed text that clearly belongs at menopause and is off-topic here, placed some of that here on talk, and copyedited a bit. I cannot see at this stage any reason for any text that is here not to be covered at menopause, and suggest further cleanup then merge there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This text is offtopic here and belongs at menopause, if anywhere. Some of it is poorly sourced (old sources or hypotheses or primary sources). Whether this article should exist separately from menopause is doubtful; regardless, this article does not need to revisit menopause.

• The irregular functioning is often externally portrayed through mixed emotions during the premenstrual time (PMS). Menopause brings the amygdala and prefrontal cortex to consistently functional and regulated state as hormone levels stay low and do not face the spikes associated with menstruation.
• Estrogens are involved in a wide range of functions including female sex characteristics and reproduction as well as cognitive protection and hormonal relationships.
• Studies on estrogen therapy in relation to cognition postmenopause have shown that therapy can have beneficial affects if utilize right before or during menopause, thus indicating a "critical window" theory.^[1][2][3][4] This is consistent with the "healthy cell bias" of estrogen, meaning that estrogen has positive effects on healthy neurons but can cause added damage to neurons with previous afflictions.^[4][5]

Thank you SandyGeorgia for your help. I will discuss with my professor whether I should go ahead and move this content, as I agree it all fits better under menopause. As I continue making changes, please feel free to inform me of what is not allowed as I know many of my resources are primary sources. AllisonMaloney (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alison, if you have enough secondary sources that you think you can justify a stand-alone article (that is, so much information that it can't be included at menopause), we could discuss further, but based on what is here, I'm not seeing that so far. Thanks for engaging on talk !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Question- much of the research on this topic is so incredibly new (especially the exact finding of how estrogen and cognition coincide), so is there any possible way I can portray a primary source without having issues? Thanks so much for your help. AllisonMaloney (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There are limited instances where using recent info and primary sources is acceptable (see WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT and again WP:MEDRS), but this isn't likely to be one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not news, and not for original research; we prefer secondary sources. Here is an example where we might cautiously accept the use of a widely published and well regarded primary source that has not yet been reviewed by secondary sources: in that case, a random controlled trial was twice as large as the previous meta analysis, and it was published in a highly reputable journal. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia, I am hoping to be able to get up to 15,000 bytes in this topic and within the menopause page. As I continue to add things do you mind if I post them here first to be checked, especially sources? Also, do you suggest moving the article back to my sandbox as I continue working? Thank you immensely for your help and if you find that is article may not be fit, please let me know as I may change topics. AllisonMaloney (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allison; thanks for engaging on talk.

I am not an admin, and I'm unclear on the process and even whether one should move an article back to sandbox after it has been moved to mainspace and edited by others. I will ask an admin to look in here for you. One possibility is that you just continue working in sandbox, and then overwrite this article with your new content, but I'm really not sure.

Also, the biggest problem with the article now, as we discussed earlier, is the lack of secondary reviews. I would be most willing to help you advance the article if you are using secondary reviews, but working on a draft that is based on primary sources isn't a good use of my time. Have you seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches? Do you know how to look up a source in the search engine which you can find here from PubMed, see if the source is primary or secondary, and include a PMID in your citation? If not, our first step is for me to help you learn to do that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

AllisonMaloney, I just realized that this article has already been moved back and forth from sandbox once, which meant a lot of work for editors here. An admin did the move, deleted the old page (which lost all of my work), and then when you moved it back, I did my work on the article again. So, no, I don't think a third shot out of sandbox is a good next step. That would mean a lot of work for a lot of volunteers, and is not the way Wikipedia is used.

From several other articles I've seen from your class, it appears that your professor designed the course poorly, and you students are left in a lurch. First, he didn't make sure you had enough sources and were writing on topics that wouldn't end up deleted or merged (that should have been the first step), and second, he has you publishing articles before he has graded them. He should have been grading your work in your sandbox, and they should not have been published to mainspace until they were ready; as soon as you publish anything to Wikipedia, you no longer own it and it can change. Your professor should learn how to go through the diffs to see the history of the article; your original version is still in the article history (and in your sandbox, I imagine). He can grade it there if he didn't set up the course to grade in sandbox.

Can you talk to your campus or online ambassador about this poor course design? Perhaps suggest that your article be graded in your sandbox. If you don't get a satisfactory outcome, then you might talk to your school advisor, your school newspaper, your parents, or your department chair to tell them that your professor has designed a course where students are not likely to have a good experience. If your professor wants to stop by here to chat, I'll be happy to explain these things to him, but I cannot recommend moving the article back to sandbox a second time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Thank you so much for your advice. Our final page is due the 27th and I would like to continue. I am currently looking up more secondary resources at this time for this topic to augment my arguments/information. I would also like to merge the article as you suggest after I have reached the full length that I can but will need your help as I have no idea how that works. Once again thanks for all of your help, and I will stay in touch once I am ready to merge. Please continue engaging me as you see more things that may need editing as I add. AllisonMaloney (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Allison,

If you're looking for a way to expand the article, then a section on ==Signs and symptoms== would be useful. Which mental issues are included here? Which ones aren't? For example, if memory serves, difficulty with word recall is common, but depression is not part of this condition. The list at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes might give you some more ideas of things to cover.

In general, my main advice to you would be to focus more on "what" instead of "how". The molecular and neurological stuff is interesting to people like me, but most readers are going to want to know things like what percentage of women experience this and whether it is usually temporary or permanent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 1 – looked like some of the information included was not quite on topic (looks like you have worked on it since last Monday)

2. Article size: 0 – only had 11 kilobytes by 7pm on Monday, and now has 7 kB (looks like you are working on fixing this though)

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2 – you are doing a really good job communicating on the talk page

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1 – first version was a little hard to follow, but newest version looks better.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 – no new media or anything above and beyond, but you included an interesting graph and figure. Maybe you could explain them in the body of your article

_______________

Total: 15 out of 20 Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2/2
2. Article size: 1/2
Comment – had 10,972 bytes before 11/19
3. Readability: 2/2
4. Refs: 2/2
5. Links: 2/2
6. Responsive to comments: 2/2
Comments – Great job in communicating
7. Formatting: 1/2
Comments – Overall the article doesn’t seem to have been fully developed or finished. Also, the external links section is empty.
8. Writing: 2/2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2
10. Outstanding?: 1/2
Comments - Overall the information given is good, but could be rearranged to flow better with the addition of more details and more information on the subject.
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20

• • All comments are based on version submitted for grading
    

AlexLee90 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 0

• did not meet minimal criteria

3. Readability: 1

• tone was not common throughout the page

4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1

• a little bit hard to follow sometimes

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1

• I can see how hard you're working on this. Keep it up, it'll get there!

_______________

Total: 15 out of 20 Thuy Le (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a merge tag on the article, but no discussion. So I'll start it:

I oppose the merge. Postmenopausal confusion is a significant, multifaceted symptom that would benefit from plenty of room to talk about its own causes, symptoms, treatment, and research programs in detail. It deserves a {{Main}} tag and a summary in Menopause, but all the details belong here, where they can be described fully without adding another 11% (by word count) to the main article.

Yes, this means that producing a proper stand-alone article means repeating some of the relevant general information about menopause. That's true for well-written articles on all subtopics: we repeat information so that a person who is reading this article by itself will understand the context without having to go read the main article. There's no rule against that on Wikipedia; in fact, that is the recommended style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

First, it is incorrect that there is no discussion (perhaps you were had by TLDR, perhaps you were had by the fact that the article was deleted once and moved back to sandbox, so all previous discussion was removed). Second, it's all yours; I've cleaned up up the primary sources and the text that is covered in other articles and should only be linked here twice now (once before the delete, once after), gotten the article down to a small bit of text that would easily be incorporated in menopause, and I'm not doing it again. Unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I know you're busy with bigger problems, so feel free to take a break from this one, even though I don't have enough free time to commit to full supervision. WP:There is no deadline here.

But I would like to know what your complaint about Rettberg (PMID 23994581) is. It's obviously a review, even if PubMed hasn't finished processing the entry yet, which means that it's (very) recent, secondary, academic, and peer-reviewed. Ditto for Silva (PMID 24007951). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the ping, as I had unwatched. The "method to my madness" is that when primary sources are badly and incorrectly used, I remove them and, depending on text cited, either add a cn tag or remove the text entirely. When there is doubt about the sourcing that is critical to the reader, I flag the MEDRS tag in the text and in the citation, so the reader is aware. When I am unsure on the citation (because, for example, it isn't correctly listed yet at PUBMED or I don't have full journal access and am unsure), I merely tag them within the citation and not in the text. If you have full journal access and are convinced those sources are genuinely full and independent review articles, you are welcome to remove those tags. Because I did this work twice already, I was losing patience. It is not clear to me that UNDUE weight is not given to Alzheimer's in this article, so I flagged the questionable within the citation. It's all yours. Unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Support merge. Under WP:Notability. There are zero Google Scholar hits for "Postmenopausal confusion", leading me to believe that the true topic of this article is actually general postmenopausal symptoms, not a unique entity or term used by practitioners or experts. But I'll admit that I'm neither a doctor nor a woman, so may not have the best perspective. Perhaps a title change and/or expansion of the scope is in order, e.g. Postmenopausal symptoms. --Animalparty-- (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It is a separate condition. And closing Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Our group plans to edit this article to add more information about the history of post menopausal confusion, add links to the article so it is no longer an orphan, will add more to the introduction and include citations. We also want to expand more on hormone therapy treatment and add other treatments if found. CSaeteurn, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We plan to remove any overlapping text on menopause and add more information about associated causes and studied treatments for postmenopausal confusion. We will look over the current references and remove any primary sources while incorporating more secondary sources. N. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

We should also expand on the introduction, provide signs and symptoms, and attempt to differentiate this type of confusion from others. We can also update the treatment with the most current information. --N. Piri, UCSF Pharmacy Student (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Mechanism section was removed due to plagiarism, original research, and generally outdated or misinterpreted information. The mechanism is not clearly understood and we should not pretend that we can come up with the solution out of thin air. We will rebuild this section as best as possible with the information that is available to us, but the mechanism overall is poorly understood. This means that any mechanistic explanations will only indicate the types of ongoing research. N. Piri, UCSF Pharmacy Student (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing more developed pages about diseases, I suggest we include the following information in this article, if available. 1. An estimate of the number of people affected. 2. An estimate of the age range of people affected. 3. When the condition was first observed 4. Associated economic cost N. Piri, UCSF Pharmacy Student (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Part 1: 1) Yes, the group's edits substantially improve the article according to the framework, as updated and accurate information has been published as provided by cited and established secondary sources. 2) Yes, the group has accomplished it's assigned tasks, as evidenced by the listed treatments and causes related to postmenopausal confusion. The organization for the treatments and causes are also done very nicely. More secondary sources and statistics were included and any plagiarism was removed, it appears. Overall, I believe all the goals have been fulfilled.

Part 2: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?: Yes, all the points in the article are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available. This is made clear through the numerous in-text citations throughout the article, and the list of final citations at the bottom of the page. Clicking on both forms of citations, I am easily able to both access the article, and find the area where the information was obtained. It is clear as well that with each fact, it's related source is immediately cited (via in-text citations), allowing me to see the summary of information provided by 79 citations listed at the bottom of the article. -Emily Sabour ESabour (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Part 1: The group’s edits improve the article’s contents, as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework.” The article has a lead section that is easy to follow and gives an understandable overview of the article, the structure organizes the sections in a sensible order, coverage is complete and reflects different perspectives in the published literature, the content is presented in a neutral manner and does not attempt to persuade the reader toward any idea or position, and the sources are reliable journal articles. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement.

Part 2:The edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The article title, headings, and sections follow the formatting guidance set by Wikipedia. There is consistency in capitalization, abbreviations, and punctuation, and the vocabulary consists of universally understood terms rather than those that are less common.

~~~~Emily Nguyen 8/2/21 E. Nguyen, UCSF Pharm.D. 23 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Part 1

1) Yes, this group's revisions have substantially improved the article as described in the guiding framework and this is made evident by their efforts in parsing redundant information that can be found in the "menopause" wikipedia page while adding differential and pertinent details relating to the symptom itself. The edits made from this group has definitely added a lot of insightful knowledge about postmenopausal confusion and this can be observed simply from comparing the article text from before and after their revisions. One can also appreciate the effort they put into replacing primary citations with secondary sources as the references provided have vastly changed as well.

2) I believe this group has achieved with what they started for at the begininning of the project. They've almost entirely hit the mark with incorporating secondary sources, however I noticed that there can be more added since there were some text left without citations. I would also recommended fixing some of the citations as some are placed within the sentence when they are supposed to be at the end of them. Their expansion of the introduction and subsequent sections was successful as I've noticed considerable detail was added with ease of comprehension. One thing I would add to their efforts here would be to link more wikipedia pages to substantial items in the text. As for their goal of revising the mechanism of postmenopausal confusion, I recommend adding an entire section dedicated to it in the article as I think it is an important component even if not much is known yet in current research. Even if it is only a couple of sentences, it would allow for future editors to add to the section. Lastly, they achieved in adding more statistics to the articles. I saw that they added numbers sparingly and when necessary to illustrate pertinent details. Overall, I think that they did a fine job at tending to what they set out for, however simple revisions can be made such as correctly formatting citations and linking items to pertinent wikipedia pages.

Part 2 - Prompt 4: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? I think this group definitely made edits that supports this kind of language. Revisions which added text and detailed information on the topic were cohesive, easy to understand, and straight to point. They sparingly presented relevant and current facts as they are in a way that anyone researching the topic can understand. E. Nguyen, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Part I: 1) Yes, according to the 'Guiding Framework', improvements made to the article are: 1) comprehensible 2) concise 3) balanced 4) neutral and 5) appropriately cited with sources. For example, the lead points out what is defined as postmenopausal confusion, its commonly associated symptoms, and current treatment strategies. These topics are later expanded upon in the remaining article without extra emphasis in one area over the other. 2) Yes, the group achieved its listed goals. Notably, one of the main goals was to differentiate postmenopausal confusion from menopause itself as well as from other types of confusion. The group was able to do so by explicitly defining what may be categorized as postmenopausal confusion (exhibiting unexplained symptoms at the onset of post-menopause) and acknowledging that although no treatments exist for postmenopausal confusion, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options exist for improving symptoms associated with postmenopausal confusion.

Part II: The article represents a neutral point of view. For example, the author does not suggest one treatment option over another and instead lists multiple, available options as studied by researchers. Phrases such as "may improve" and "may prevent" are utilized when citing studies regarding the use of supplements to improve cognitive function. This neutrality allows the reader to make their own decisions. A smaller concern is the positive or negative associations regarding the use of certain words, which may tip the balance away from neutral. For instance, the authors cite "several promising drug candidates are still being explored"; however, the word promising can be subjective and vary based on individuals. A more neutral stance would be stating that "several new drug candidates...". Aside from this, the authors have done a phenomenal job in gathering and presenting information in an unbiased manner.

E Chu, PharmD 2023 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have recently thought about the use of the word woman throughout the article and wonder if the language should be changed to include those who do not self identify as women but experience menopause. My inclination was to include at some point in the article that, although the research specifically indicates women, the information is applicable to people who menstruate (or people who undergo menopause). I can also use gender-neutral terminology such as "individuals" throughout the article if appropriate. N. Piri, UCSF Pharmacy Student (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that a line has been added to the end of the blurb which speaks to this matter. At the risk of seeming like a legalist, is there a WikiProject or some other central resource here on the encyclopedia that has general guidelines on how terminology like this should be approached? Ellenor2000 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This message confirms that all references have been reviewed by Group 21 and are consistent with WP:MOS. NP94925 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

References #4 and #21 were duplicates, we consolidated all callouts in the text which now refer to reference #4. N. Lee, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)