Talk:Pudendal nerve entrapment

Why is there a long terminology section in this article? It's not something I see routinely in Wikipedia. Usually word meanings and definitions are resolved by following wikilinks. Look at the article Cancer for instance. No terminology section, even though the page is full of technical words. Do you have examples of articles with long terminology sections for comparison. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello sometimes I put a "terminology" or "background" section in articles readers would benefit from some prior knowledge in order to better understand the article.

According to MEDMOS (a general guide), there can be a Classification section as the first heading if we treat this article as "Diseases or disorders or syndromes" (currently the headings mostly follow this format of headings)

If we treat pudendal neuralgia as "Signs or symptoms", there can be a Definition section as the first heading.

The section could be renamed to "Definitions" , and some content removed. For example, do we really need a definition of neuritis since that term is used in one source in the history section. Moribundum (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If the term defined is used in the article, it should be turned into a wikilink (see h:LINK) and not re-defined inside the article. Again, this stops unnecessary content forking. Readers are perfectly capable of following links on words they do not understand. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

From wp:MEDMOS: Rely on wikilinks to help articles stay focused and to avoid placing undue weight on peripheral details. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. It is irritating for readers to have to look up technical jargon many times just to understand what the article is saying. Gold standard is wikilink plus definition, in lay terms. Moribundum (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

PNE not classified in the latest International Classification of Diseases], whereas things like carpal tunnel syndrome is. Pudendal neuralgia is mentioned. Infobox should be adjusted. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The book Peripheral Nerve Entrapments by author-editor Trescot and chapter author Chowdhury is used everywhere as a source. It almost has far more citations on the page than any other source. It's possibly a self-published book (Springer allows authors to pay to publish their own books, see their policies) written by two doctors trained in anesthesiology (not neurology, not surgery), and who make a living from administering injections for pain, so both have a profit motive to publish the book, raising wp:MEDCOI. To quote MEDRS: "most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources." I'm not comfortable about the weight this source has here. It would be good to see it used less as a source, and revert to relying on peer reviewed studies. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Note I am not sure, on closer examination, whether this is self-published under a license other than Creative Commons licence or a variation thereof that restricts access. It may also have been published under a commercial agreement with Springer, in which case it would have received "in-house" peer review at Springer (I quote them: "Your manuscript will be reviewed by 1 or more experts"). One wonders what sort of peer review this new area of medicine can get at a publisher (even in the book Trescot admits that the field is less than 20 years old). So the book still doesn't rise to the level of a systematic review paper, which should form the bulk of citations for the article. Currently we have 34 uses of this book —edited and mostly written by a Trescot, a woman who makes her living injecting "entrapped" nerves— used as the source for statements and 'facts'. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And if the source in question was skeptical of the condition, you would have no problems with it. Moribundum (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I place citations very densely. One effect of this is that sources appear cited many times. But compare with other sources here... some other sources are cited many times also. Really in medical articles every single statement benefits from individual citation. It means the article keeps its integrity as future editors add new text. Otherwise a block paragraph all cited to one source gets new info inserted in the middle, and it is not longer clear what info is supported by what source.

It's OK to use textbooks for medical articles. This source is good quality Moribundum (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, concern was raised regarding sources in history section. Note that for historical details MEDRS does not strictly apply (no health claim). For important publications (e.g. first ever description of a condition - as confirmed by secondary source) I think it is not inappropriate to add it in the context of historical info.

Sometimes there are interesting historical details in the review part of a "case report and review of the literature" type publication. I don't strongly oppose removal, but I think the history section will be poorer for it. Moribundum (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• There's also an error here:

Prior to discovery of the condition, such pain symptoms were sometimes diagnosed as psychogenic pain because health care providers could not detect any cause.[76] incorrect citation.

Should be cited to Labat et al 2008 (wherein "...previously considered to be psychogenic due to the absence of organic lesions demonstrated on imaging or endoscopy.") and not the current citation.

• Don't oppose removal of this part, which is borderline synthesis:

In the following years, the same group of researchers and others released several French language publications about the condition.[71][72][73][74] By the early 1990s, English language publications began to appear.[66] By 2005 some American doctors were publishing detailed theories about pudendal nerve entrapment

Moribundum (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This Diagnosis subsection has seventy-four (74) words jammed into its lead-in sentence (already making one's mind turn summersaults). I plan to further increase that length, including other conditions that have overlapping symptoms, e.g. Radiation enteropathy#Causes ties into pudendal nerve dysfunction. The current Differential diagnosis subjects appear to be grouped into chronic, compression, orthopedic, childbirth structural damage, etc. It there a template or guide for presenting these in subparagraph form?TomStonehunter (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)