Talk:Arachnoid cyst

Cyberchondria warning

Can we add a cyberchondria warning to this page? I think there are too many websites profiting with arachnoid-cyst-related cyberchondria in the web already (and this page is even linking to several of them) -- wouldn't it be a good idea to give some warning to the readers? Thank you. 128.112.16.97 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to give an example, I think the website arachnoidcyst.org overstates and exaggerates the symptoms and consequences of arachnoid cysts, while completely lacking professional expertise. Note also that this website asks for donations in every page, and that it not only ascertains that brain surgery is the option for all patients, but it also recommends (ie, advertises) some surgeons. 128.112.16.97 (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. The 'Treatment' section of this article seems to contradict the rest of the article. While the rest of the article makes it clear (and is correct) that most arachnoid cysts seem to be benign and likely present from birth, the Treatment article suddenly implies that all cysts need treatment or severe neurological problems may result. I would suggest it needs a sentance before that reminding readers that most cysts do not need treatment unless unwanted symptoms are present or the cyst seems to be growing. --94.173.6.85 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Source of original text

Original text taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/arachnoid_cysts/arachnoid_cysts.htm (public domain)

Source line added Derby Dave 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress...

I hope the changes I've made thus far (and probably will continue to make) don't mess up any of the fine contributions others have made to this article. My dad had surgery last week for an arachnoid cyst, and the night before surgery was the first time I'd even heard the term. As a rare disease, according to NORD, it seems difficult to get credible information on the subject. With more common diseases like lung cancer, the facts are easier for most of us to sort out from hype, hearsay and unsupported statistics. In my experience, Googling results in general information and endless anecdotes that confuse or scare the reader.

As a result, I feel very strongly about two things with this article:

• We must define medical jargon. It's great if a Wikipedia or Wiktionary article is available and can be linked. If not, or as a supplement, use a brief inline definition. Chances are, the readers most interested in this topic will know very little medical terminology. And chances are, the editors compiling information for the article will be summarizing text geared toward the medical community, not laypersons.
• We must cite sources for all assertions, or tag with the {{fact}} template. This is official policy (see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more), but Wikipedia articles containing common knowledge might simply list a few references at the end. Perhaps once this article enters a more finalized state we can simplify the references. For time being, however, facts from the NINDS info page, for instance, are commingled with various unsourced statements. I think we need nothing less than <ref></ref> tags, leading to an appropriate source, for each distinct fact. I don't think this will result in an inordinate amount of work. As you can see in Wikipedia:Footnotes, citing a single article multiple times doesn't involve an excessive amount of typing. If silly-looking footnotes become the biggest problem with this page, we'll be in great shape.

Now, feel free to critique away regarding my choice of references. ;-) They aren't necessarily the best, but were authoritative sources I could find on PubMed[1] and stated in abstracts. I hope to do actual library research soon so I can provide better references, and would welcome any and all improvements/suggestions. I'll take suggestions, but I'd hope that each interested person can follow the wp:bold guideline and apply his or her own contributions and edits.

I hope this rambling comment doesn't imply that I'm dictating anything here. I do have strong opinions, but wouldn't have bothered stating them here if I didn't value the feedback of others who also have opinions on the subject. My goal is to produce an excellent, informative article. If you believe there's a better way for us to make that happen, I'm open to any ideas and suggestions.

Here's a general outline of things I want to see from this artice:

• A structure that follows similar diseases. I don't entirely know what this means yet. I've reviewed several disease articles on Wikipedia and have unsurprisingly found many variations. Some diseases whose layout looked interesting: Guillain-Barré syndrome, Cardiovascular disease, Multiple sclerosis
• A brief inline anatomy primer with some diagrams/pictures, maybe even example MRIs.
• Treatment thoroughly fleshed out. For instance, how is the shunt implanted, and where does it drain? This seems to vary, and I want to provide information about the variations and why they might occur.
• Break out risk factors (or causes, if known) from symptoms.

Thanks for all the contributions to the article up to this point, and thanks in advance for all the future contributions!

Quintote 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good

The new structure looks good. I've found a few bits about prevalence and structure but am not sure the reference format I've used is the same as yours. Feel free to change them to match yours.

My son has just been dagnosed with A.C.'s. I think we share a layman's interest in the subject which will help to translate the medi-jargon and produce a useful Wiki-page.

I'll try to contribute more.

Derby Dave 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee Dave, I've been doing research on Arachnoid Cysts for 17 years now. And I started arachnoidcyst.org[2] in order to help people navigate this never ending nightmare known as an "asymptomatic" problem which is more likely an auto immune degenerative disease with not enough research going into this mess. Sorry about your son. Catherine Clay... 34 years fighting and 17 of them known. --Ceclay 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the contributions and interest, Dave! Sorry to hear about your son's diagnosis. Hopefully our contributions can help others in the future that are affected by this disease.

Quintote 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My little sister has Arachnoid cyst but I'm still investigating it to see what is the cause of that but my sister had Hydrocephalus but I know that was it that caused that Arachnoid but I hope I can get good results. 'Palianco' (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I keep learning new things...

I just found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), which is an excellent guide that--surprise--was way ahead of my ideas. I was pleased to see that some things, such as avoiding medical jargon, were already emphasized, though I'm sure many others have created articles without an awareness of this guide. I'm going to do some basic work to make the headings consistent with the recommended medical article styles, but expect to take a bit before I get the content in order.

I'm now researching in more depth, and have buried myself in information on arachnoid cysts. I'm currently at a point of still trying to glean the facts from all this data, and expect to take some time to group these together in a way that will best flow as an article. My biggest struggle is figuring out how to give appropriate coverage to both intracranial and spinal arachnoid cysts. At this point they seem to be very different beasts: they are both accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid formed in pockets of the arachnoid membrane, but the causes, symptoms, and treatment vary. Examples:

• It seems Marfan syndrome is primarily/exclusively associated with spinal cysts. (Still researching this.)
• Literature seems to mention symptoms such as depression for arachnoid cysts, yet closer examination (and common sense) indicate this symptom is exclusive to intracranial cysts. Both spinal and intracranial cysts can cause paralysis, but intracranial cysts are [obviously] associated with behavioral issues.
• Spinal cysts seem to primarily affect the 50+ crowd, whereas intracranial cysts are more common in infants and yet affect people of all ages. (again, still working out the facts on this)
• It seems spinal cysts are treated by draining or excision, whereas intracranial cysts are treated by draining or shunting.

Whew, I wasn't planning to write a research paper, but it seems that's what I'm doing... - Quintote 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a d 2409:408D:4EC6:B5BD:0:0:C38B:8A0C (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a suggestion ...

Hi Quintote: Just visited the page after a while. Mightily impressed by the work you've done. How about removing that "Clean Up" tag now? Derby Dave 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go ahead and do that. I'm not putting the time towards this I was hoping, but I still have grand plans of adding a lot more info to this article. I'm reading through and highlighting hundreds of pages of journal articles and textbook pages, making notes. -Quintote 00:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally added to the article, moved here in an edit

Please join further discussion on arachnoidcyst.org[3] or arachnoidcyst.net[4] to get a blow by blow update from those that suffer long term and to understand our prognosis better. Granted we are all individuals but like cancer, there are many similarties in the manner in which patients suffer and until there is an established protocol we only have each other to depend on.--Ceclay 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just learned more and more and more. This was almost 3 years to the day when I was speaking to 2-5 ppl a week and now it's 3-5 a day. I had no *idea* it was going to be this much of a problem. I'm a shoulder to cry on, a person that might scare you with what I have to say, someone that you might could dispute with I love to hear from you. I don't care I just want to share my knowledge with you and help you through quite possibly the worst info you thought was of no importance because some idiot thought you were lying or can't check out what's going on out here in the real world and not the database of how these things ruin your CNS. Give me a call. 800-493-5022. Catherine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnoidcyst (talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Contested statements removed to talk

• While [headache is] the most common symptom,{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
• While these [drainage] procedures are relatively simple, there is a high incidence of recurrence.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional contested items moved to talk

I moved the following items here since I don't see much talking about hereditary of arachnoid cysts, except in one case where I found a connection between a hereditary disorder (ADPKD), but I'm instead replacing it with a general statement about some cases of heredity associated with AC without getting into dominant vs. recessive traits.

In a few rare cases, intracranial arachnoid cysts may be inherited as an autosomal recessive trait[citation needed]. In a few rare cases, spinal intradural arachnoid cysts may be inherited as an autosomal dominant trait[citation needed].

--Quintote (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... well since I've spoken to over 1000 people I beg to differ that these things ARE NOT hereditary. Since the problem is on the 13th and/or 15th chromosomes then I think I can safely state that these ARE in FACT heredity.

If you are saying that they aren't then you are saying that they are it's kind of confusing. All I know is I've spoken to too many people with sons/aunts/uncles/sisters with other CNS diseases and not just Arachnoid Cysts alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnoidcyst (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonimity of patient in MR image

Hi, I opened a discussion on the wikimedia commons site where the image is hosted, but as few people will actually look there I would like to mention this point here as well.

I am a bit worried about the anonymity of the patient shown in the figure. Her name is blurred, but only a little. I'm pretty sure I can read a first name (second blurred element). Combined with an exact date of birth I think this is too much information that is also not relevant for the interpretation of the figure. Would people agree to remove the patient name and DOB altogether from the figure?

Mdgroovy (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arachnoid cyst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928042449/http://www.escriber.com/Progress/Features.asp?Action=View&Archive=True&ID=67&GroupID=&Page=11 to http://www.escriber.com/Progress/Features.asp?Action=View&Archive=True&ID=67&GroupID=&Page=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928042438/http://www.escriber.com/Progress/Features.asp?Action=View&Archive=True&ID=29&GroupID=&Page=18 to http://www.escriber.com/Progress/Features.asp?Action=View&Archive=True&ID=29&GroupID=&Page=18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)