Talk:Whiplash (medicine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whiplash (medicine) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Biomechanical aspects 2 Worldview template 3 Cause 4 Possible copyright violation 5 New sections

[edit] Biomechanical aspects

Could someone please address this person's nonsense? "Probably the best known...injuries nowadays." Um, how bout the bruise? This section is way too hard for a layperson to penetrate and methinks quite a bit unnecessary. "How can this be diagnosed then?" is not an appropriate title and is better off in the diagnosis subhead. The whole thing could be dissected, reparceled and redistributed to the rest of the article. Thanks. Sideburnstate 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliably diagnosing this disorder is difficult, since it is based on the subjective reports of the patient, who must answer questions about pain in movement by the doctor. No clear standard exist to diagnose whiplash, and doctors may resort to using standard tables listing the possible range of motion of the human head. If a patient cannot achieve the full motion, it is probable that the reason is pain or injury caused by the whiplash.

I think this article fails to differentiate between (typically short-term) physical injury, and the long-term (controversial, and possibly psychological) condition that was so common a few years ago. I should also address the controversy, I think. kzm 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Higher severity cases are easily visible even in X-Rays.

A rising percentage of car accidents result in a refund claim based on whiplash. This is partly due to an increased awareness, but it is likely that the difficulty excluding the diagnosis makes it easy to raise false claims.

Personal injury claims and awards as a whole have been going down, contrary to what insurance companies say.

I also think this article should be further expanded. I personally suffer from "Grade 4" (3 vertebrae dislocated in 2 separate directions) from being rear-ended. I was dismayed when I looked it up on Wikipedia a year after the accident just out of curiosity and found what I heard from a claims adjuster (who made a generous offer of $250 for my partially-disabling and very painful injury). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.74.72 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 7 May 2005

Is there a connection with whips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.245.27 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 July 2005

I just replaced that section that defines the definiton a little less "Quebec-based" but I can't find any less Quebec-related information, unfortunetely. --Dmacdonald95 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

QTF section should be tempered with not only an explanation of what the grades mean, but some of the controversy surrounding them. Such as: Initially created by AC Croft (Croft Guidelines) several years before Spitzer published his QTF paper. The guidelines were also changed during that event which introduced some rather glaring errors. Since the QTF paper is such an often quoted paper for whiplash (virtually every other paper touching the subject cites it in the references) its errors should be exposed.

e.g. #1: (from: Freeman, M.D., et al., A review and methodologic critique of the literature refuting whiplash syndrome. Spine, 1999. 24(1): p. 86-96.) "The Results and Discussion section of the case series study contained numerous references to the percentage of the study population "recovered" at the time of cessation of compensation. However, the QTF did not gather any data regarding the symptoms, amount or type of treatment, or functional impairment of its cohort-all factors necessary to determine the level of recovery after an injury. The QTF chose to define "recovery" unconventionally as cessation of time-loss compensation."

e.g. #2: Unsupported Conclusions. In a table entitled "Prevalence of Symptoms at Follow-Up," the QTF enumerated the four studies on prognosis that were accepted for review, along with its findings. Ref 1: 66% of their cohort had neck pain 2 years after injury. Ref 2: reported 27% were symptomatic 6 months after the MVC, and 27% of their cohort had headaches 6 months after the MVC. Ref 3: reported 44% were symptomatic at an average of 2 years after the MVC.

Somehow the QTF concluded that "Whiplash associated disorders are usually self-limited," and "Patients should be reassured that most WAD are benign and self-limiting," inaccurately summarizing the results of its literature review and case-series study.Drwagnerdc (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Even mild rear end collisions can result in whiplash and be seen on x-ray as a loss of cervical lordosis. This can be a straightening of the neck or an s-curve shape that will over several years time result in arthritic changes to the mid cervical spine. This is why the condition of Whiplash is a major cause of permenant impairment in the world.

This straightening and s-curve shape has been observed on cadavers and human volunteer rear impact crash tests on numerous peer reviewed papers. (see Yogananden, University of Wisconson Medical School, Wisconson, USA ) Further, these studies demonstrate the damage to the cervical ( neck )facet joints.

Relief of the pain involves returning the neck to some degree of cervical lordosis either through spinal realignments via manipulations or cervical lordosis building traction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.42.12 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2005

Authors to reference- Harrison, Don, Grauer, Kaneoka K, Matshushita T, Yang K and Begeman P of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan,USA, Malanga G ,and Dellanno R, Croft A, Kleinberger M ( Johns Hopkins Univ.APL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.42.12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 July 2005

The name probably refers to the whip-like motion of the head and neck seen during a rear-end. Tronno —Preceding comment was added at 13:53, 24 August 2005

Ok, how do any of these complaints have to do with the neutrality of this article?? - M0r3Educ@tedth@nY0u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.4.176 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 May 2006

They don't. Whiplash is a real disease and a diagnosis given by reputable doctors. It is not as the writer indicates a term prefered by lawyers. That is what prevents this article from being neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spowers (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 May 2006

[edit] Worldview template

I added this because the article seems overly focused on Quebec. Quebec is not the only place where whiplash occurs, and it would be nice to see how its regarded in the rest of the world (or even the rest of Canada or North America for that matter). It certianly needs more about the medical side of things, and maybe an X-ray image if someone can aquire one without copyright and patient privacy issues. ONUnicorn 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause

Whiplash is caused when the anterior longitudinal ligament of the spine tears or is stretched.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.10.67 (talk • contribs)

The above is just a theory!

[edit] Possible copyright violation

This page has some of the same text as the article. Not sure who copied who. Edward 12:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sections

The sections added by User:Hkiessecker (here) really don't belong in my mind - there are no sources, they seem to criticize the medical establishment pretty strongly considering there are no sources, there seems to be some original research or assumptions happening, the tone is all wrong, and I find it virtually incomprehensible from a purely english perspective. The links added are all to some sort of whiplash wiki, which are barred by the external links policy. Any other thoughts? WLU 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse removal per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SOAP, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:EL, and any other policy that I am missing. Leuko 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be kosher (not in the literal sense), points were brought up with User:Jfdwolff and User:Arcadian. WLU 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)