Talk:Empty nose syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empty nose syndrome was wikified on 22 August 2006 as part of WikiProject Wikify. The project is currently taking on a 7000+ page backlog, and needs your help! Please help and wikify a page or tell a friend about the project.Draicone (talk)
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify (Talk):
Information from Empty nose syndrome appeared on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section on September 11, 2006.
Did You Know


Contents

[edit] Misc

Hi, This article reflects my personal understanding of Empty Nose Syndrome and the physiology of the nose, which I have cultivated through many years of researching those topics. My personal interest in this is great as I suffer from Empty nose Syndrome myself. Under the sub-tital "Quotes" there are direct quotes with their scientific references, from leading ENT journals. They are followed by a long list of scientific references.

[edit] Blacklisted external link (emptynosesyndrome.org)

I had to remove several external links that linked to the emptynosesyndrome.org site. I don't know why this URL was blacklisted, other than the discussion at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#emptynosesyndrome.org

If these links are useful, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject matter can request an appeal of this blacklisting. WatchAndObserve 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete cleanup

This article needs to fall in line with WP:MEDMOS, citations need to follow WP:CITET, writing must follow WP:MOS, and etc. etc. Moreover, I'm not convinced that this article really should stay. I'm considering a speedy delete. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I had never heard of it at all and was musing that it was a somewhat new synthesis when I first saw it..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time finding verified sources outside of a few individuals promoting their medical practice. I really think this is approaching original research. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Cleanup Part 2

Have to agree - the tone, style and format is horribly unencyclopaedic and glad to see a rewrite is planned. As Orange already stated, there seems to be very little about it in legitimate medical sources from my short look around. If it can meet the definitions for both notability and verifiability then I'm not sure speedy delete would be the way to go, but the article certainly needs to be rewritten in a more appropriate tone and layout as per the relevant wiki guidelines/policies.

Any idea if peer reviewed journals automatically infer notability, or if not, how many articles are needed to make it meet those criteria, for example? It is a little like Morgellons - the vast majority of the medical establishment thinks that it isn't what it asserts to be, and is explained by other explanations/diagnoses, but it would still meet the criteria to be verifiable and notable. A quick search of Pubmed brings up 32 results, only 5 of which actually referred to this condition. 1) 2008 - One refers to verious post-op problems including ENS but without reading the full thing I don't know what was said. 2) 2007 - A second states that "Patients were diagnosed as having ENS if they described characteristic symptoms, had evidence of prior nasal turbinate surgery, and their symptoms improved after they underwent a cotton test." - i.e. there are no real tests to diagnose it other than patients' description of symptoms post-op. 3) 2006 - One that has no abstract but the title of ENS. 4) 2001 - One had the same title but different authors, presented in a Chinese journal, and states that "some [of the 14 patients studied] presented symptoms of depression" - not all, that "Conservative treatment was effective in most cases." and that "Extensive turbinectomy may cause secondary nasal mucosal atrophy and a series of subsequent symptoms". 5) 2000 - One was a paper that mentioned rebuilding the nasal structure for what it termed "symptoms often associated with over-zealous resection of the turbinate (the "empty nose" syndrome)".

In comparison, Morgellons has 10 articles. From other searches, however, it seems that most of the symptoms described within this article are generally termed secondary (iatrogenic - that is, as a result of medical intervention) atrophic rhinitis and/or sinusitis - various searches produce anywhere from over 20 to over 140 articles that seem to match the appropriate criteria, depending upon the exact search terms - including the various papers from the specific search for EMS.

My conclusion, therefore, is the term has been used over the last 8 years in the medical literature, but so rarely and much more frequently is described as atrophic rhinitis as to be no more than an "alternative" label for what is - fundamentally - secondary iatrogenic atrophic rhinitis which results from some extensive turbinate resections (turbinectomy). I'm not totally convinced what differentiates so-called ENS from other secondary atrophic rhinitis cases, so I'm not totally convinced it truly deserves a full article to itself. Perhaps there is another appropriate article it could be breifly mentioned in and this article turned into a redirect, unless anyone feels strongly that it can be differentiated more starkly. 86.3.150.116 (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (I really must register one day...)