|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glaucoma article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Vital articles: Level 5 / Biology and health sciences|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Glaucoma.|
It doesn't look black
I'm a patient, not a doctor. This picture, which is used at Glaucoma#Causes, shows blackness in the directions the patient can't see. That isn't what my vision looks like, although my glaucoma isn't as bad as his. The directions I can't see (with the other eye closed) look like what my blind spot looked like before I had glaucoma. That is, it doesn't look black and I don't usually notice a problem at all – but if something is in that direction, even a bright light bulb, I won't see it. My brain makes an image consistent with what it sees around the bad area. So there isn't a way to show that in the picture, but it would be possible to explain it in the image caption. Art LaPella (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Would this be an improvement? Note that the background in the image is transparent rather than white.
Add Link to Uveitic Glaucoma
|This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.|
Can we add a link to the uveitic glaucoma Wikipedia page under the causes/other section? It is currently not linked at all. The Uveitic Glaucoma page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uveitic_glaucoma) is currently an orphan page and does not have any other articles linked to it.
Thank you for your consideration.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Glaucomflecken and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Glaucomflecken until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, we are a group of health professionals and students in the OSMOSIS community who decided to take this article to enhance it as a project. Thank you.Omar tawil (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Risk Factors Paragraph
This paragraph was part of the introduction. I moved it to the [Causes] section since it discuses the risk factors in more details. Is it necessary to add the details of the eye pressure values? It is very likely that the readers don't even know what the normal range is...
"Risk factors for glaucoma include increasing age, high pressure in the eye, a family history of glaucoma, and use of steroid medication. For eye pressures, a value of 21 mmHg or 2.8 kPa above atmospheric pressure (760 mmHg) is often used, with higher pressures leading to a greater risk. However, some may have high eye pressure for years and never develop damage. Conversely, optic nerve damage may occur with normal pressure, known as normal-tension glaucoma. The mechanism of open-angle glaucoma is believed to be the slow exit of aqueous humor through the trabecular meshwork, while in closed-angle glaucoma the iris blocks the trabecular meshwork. Diagnosis is achieved by performing a dilated eye examination. Often, the optic nerve shows an abnormal amount of cupping."
Environment and Genetics Section
I am currently editing the environment and genetics section.
I added this paragraph, the majority of the sentences were cited from primary sources. I was wandering if you think this is ok, or should I look for review articles instead? (you may find the citations in the article).
"Playing high-resistance wind instruments like oboe, bassoon, French horn, and trumpet was found to elevate IOP. Caffeine consumption among people with a strong genetic tendency for high eye pressure increases their likelihood of having glaucoma. Certain yoga positions may also increase IOP. Moreover, wearing tight neckties, and lifting weights are known to temporarily increase IOP. Alcohol use is also associated with IOP and open-angle glaucoma."
- Primary sources are not ideal. Review articles (secondary sources are better). And I believe transient elevations in IOP such as with playing wind instruments, exercising, weightlifting or performing certain Yoga positions are not clinically relevant. Golan1911 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Valuable contributions in editing the article, enhancing its clarity and accuracy. Your efforts are truly appreciated. Here's some critique that could help to enhance the flow the the clarity of the article.
Overall, the article's introduction provides a comprehensive overview of glaucoma, effectively summarizing its key features, capturing the reader's attention, and serving as an abstract of the article as the paragraphs are divided as the subheadings of the article. This is a very good point that organizes the readers and summarizes the main points of the article. I like that they add the meaning of The word "glaucoma" in the introduction. According to the last paragraph that talks about the Prevalence, epidemiology, and risk factors of glaucoma, I wish that this was at the beginning of the first paragraph. (to help in the flow of the paragraph because I felt a shift while I was reading, so to help in smoother transition it should rearrange the paragraphs)
I wish that the article had a contents box because the article is too long, and the box would give the reader an overview at the beginning and would organize their thoughts, by knowing what the main headings are, what the article is going to talk about, etc... Also, I think the history and Epidemiology section or subheading should be at the beginning of the article, right after the introduction.
I like how they engage the reader by addressing common misconceptions about ocular hypertension, but if they add subheadings like “Primary Causes" and "Secondary Causes," would be more organized.
I think in the Environment and Genetics section they should add a brief simple explanation of what the Mutations and Anomalies mean, not just link them to another wiki page. some sentences need simpler language, and Phrases like “third-trimester”, and gene names might be challenging for readers without a medical background, providing a brief explanation could improve comprehension (like what are the roles of these several genes in glaucoma). Moreover, there is a Lack of information on how these genetic factors contribute to the development of the disease, and how the environment plays a role in Glaucoma there are no details about the environment (most of them are about the genetic effect), also how the location and ethnicity contribute in a different effect on people, (how these variations manifest).
The prevention section has a flow transmission between ideas, and it effectively informs readers with a clear and simple explanation. but it would be more informative if they provided sufficient explanations for readers about medical terminology like "neuroretinal rim" and "optic fibers". There are a few minor grammatical and punctuation issues. I like how they demonstrate the difference between stages but I would like to know more, like what led to the transition from one stage to another, more symptoms in the Moderate Stage, and specific challenges faced by individuals at the Advanced stage. Also if there is statistical data it would offer a more quantitative understanding to the readers and also attract their attention. There is a smooth transition between the stages of glaucoma and risk factors, but if there are more examples of the factors that can influence the prognosis. Thank you. IsraaBaker (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Epidemiology world map update
I noticed that the world map in the Epidemiology section is from 20 years ago. How can I update it?
I checked the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop and seems like I can't add a ready map from an article. I have to make it. Are there any tips on how to do it? Does it involve excel sheets and specific programs?
The edit on the screening part was good but the rest of the diagnosis part must be edited to be more organized and reformed as bullet points to be more effective in conveying information to the people reading the article. The effort of this part was great but I think the readers couldn't get the info they wanted easily.
The article provides a strong foundation for understanding glaucoma treatment options. Expanding on the details of each treatment modality, including their benefits, risks, and patient considerations can be great. Additionally, addressing patient education and rehabilitation services would offer a more comprehensive overview of managing glaucoma as a chronic eye condition.
A lot of editing was done to the Prognosis part as a lot of nonsense junk info at first and it was a good step but the good, but it can be better and more effective if it includes things like early detection, adherence to medications and follow-up care, and the individual's response to therapy.
A better organization of the content would be beneficial. Without clear section titles, it now offers a considerable volume of information, making it difficult for readers to browse and discover certain information.
To make the text more informative, it would be beneficial to include information about the prevalence of glaucoma, risk factors, and the importance of early detection and treatment. Additionally, providing an overview of the different types of glaucoma could be helpful.
The inclusion of statistics regarding glaucoma prevalence, risk factors, and an explanation of various glaucoma types would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
However, the text contains several "" placeholders, which undermine its credibility. To improve reliability, specific citations are needed, especially when discussing pharmaceuticals, surgical techniques, and treatment outcomes.--Nooredin 2003 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)