Talk:Bonnet–Dechaume–Blanc syndrome

note

*Note to reviewers from BIOL3501: We were able to find very few articles on this topic. Since there were very few articles, we tried to cover all of the pertinent information that was available.

Bonnet-Dechaume-Blanc Syndrome is a disorder that affects the retina, visual pathways, midbrain, and facial structures. It is a rare disorder and also known as Wyburn-Mason syndrome. We will use this semester to further investigate the symptoms, causes, and occurrences of this disorder.

Possible Articles to be used:

1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039625707002482

The Congenital Unilateral Retinocephalic Vascular Malformation Syndrome (Bonnet-Dechaume-Blanc Syndrome or Wyburn-Mason Syndrome): Review of the Literature: By Schmit D, Pache M, Schumacher M, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmich25 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2934709/

Turell, M. E., & Singh, A. D. (2010). Vascular Tumors of the Retina and Choroid: Diagnosis and Treatment. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology, 17(3), 191–200.

3. http://0-search.proquest.com.libus.csd.mu.edu/docview/221157058?accountid=100

Dayani, P. N., & Sadun, A. A. (2007). A case report of wyburn-mason syndrome and review of the literature. Neuroradiology, 49(5), 445-56.

References

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary Review

In general this article is well done considering the lack of resources that the members had to work with. It was fairly concise and explained close to everything that I could want to know about the topic. The only things that I saw the could use some work was the extensive section on signs and symptoms. This section is very important, and probably the most important section of the article, but all of the other topics are so small in comparison that they seem less relevant. That is probably how it had to be because of the small amount of work done on this topic though. The only other part that I saw problems with was the small part in treatment were you said that the treatment was controversial. I was not really sure which part of the treatment was controversial, because it was not directly stated on this page. A sentence or two explaining why the treatment is controversial would be very helpful.Othrowt (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review

the article was really good given the limited info you had nice work. I got a lot of information about the syndrome, it was concise and understandable. Anyone with a limited science back round would not find this article difficult or above their heads so again good stuff. however, I did find some problems with a couple of your sections but all the rest was on point so no worries with those. Ok the sections with the issues well not really issues just needs to be a little more tidy is your mechanism section and signs and symptoms section. For mechanisms I was kind of looking for more about the development or occurrence like a specific mechanism for example types of cells, its proliferation, any mutations that lead to the syndrome maybe genetic disposition etc. this section seemed to me more like a diagnosis part so you could move it there its up to you (optional) if your volume of information would allow it sure would add to the strength of your article though. also there is to much "can" in the paragraph for example "can revel..." and "can also be..." kind of makes it sound unnecessarily passive. so I would encourage more stronger statements on those sentences. but as a whole the paragraph is good and loved the illustration too. For signs and symptoms; by the way I thought this was probably your best section I would argue although the others were good too but this one was really nice, only had minor issues though. one of the issues was with some of your sentences starting with "when" just makes it sound kind of awkward and also with one sentence that started with "this means that when" is a construction; you could clean that up a bit for clarity. also I think that some sentences are not cited when information is presented for example in the second paragraph talking about the different categories. but overall I think this is your best section. additionally you could add a further reading section to your article if readers find the information you provided is insufficient. So other than that no complaints.....Yobandaik 17:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, we appreciate it! The sources we were able to find did not have information on the mechanism of how this syndrome develops. This is primarily becuase this syndrome is the result of malformations. Thank you for your grammatical suggestions about the phrasing and word use in the Mechanisms and Signs and Symptoms category. We fixed those grammatical errors in both of the sections. Due to the limited number of sources we were able to find, if we added a Further Reading section we do not believe that we would be able to add any quality articles that were not already used as sources. NeuroKJ (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review

First off, this is a good, well-written article for the most part. I did not find too much wrong with the research as you guys really accomplished what this assignment set out to do. As Yobandaik said, it was written so that people with non-scientific backgrounds could understand it. I thought the intro was really good, caught my attention and was to the point. The one section where I had any real problems was signs and symptoms just for housekeeping reasons. The information seems to be all there but it's very dense and could possibly be organized more cleanly especially when talking about the degrees of severity and the reasons. Something else that could help is to clarify that there is limited research on this disease because there are so few documented cases. This clarification may go well with the Causes section which is short with little information relative to the other sections. There were also just a handful of possible opportunities for additional wikilinks that could be used to help clarify the subject especially for non-scientific people. Along with that, if there is a wikilink for a term, it would strengthen your article and help with the flow a bit to talk out the explanations. This happens a lot in mechanisms. That is my opinion although I can see how some people may find this easier to read in general. Finally, for references, the link to #5 does not take you to the article so you may want to tweak that. #4 is more about Wyburn-Mason syndrome. If this is related to B-D-B I understand but perhaps that should be clarified along with other conditions B-D-B is related to. Great article though, I enjoyed reading.....Theactualdonald (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendations! We are planning on rereading the entire article. We will look into the signs and symptoms. We found the most information for that section so this could be one reason why the section may seem more dense. Thanks for suggesting of adding that there is limited research on the topic. We overlooked that. One point of confusion is when you talk about adding more wikilinks. Do you think that we should wikilink a large term every time it appears in the article or just the first time? Also, do you think that we should have the wikilinks instead of explaining the term or explain the term? We did retest resource link #5 and it worked but we will test all the links to make sure they properly work. In regards to link #4, Wyburn- Mason syndrome and Bonnet-Dechaume-Blance syndrome are the same syndrome. It has two different names as stated in the intro of the article. Mmich25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions! In response to your comments about the Signs and Symptoms section, we did make several grammatical changes and added a few Wikilinks, but we have decided to keep the format the same. This section is currently set up with one paragraph being about the ophthalmic features, one paragraph about the CNS features and one paragraph about facial features. We decided that this would be the best way to present the information. Thank you for the suggestion. NeuroKJ (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review

I really enjoined reading this article, I had never heard of BDB/Wyburn-Mason syndrome before and this article did a great job explaining it! The Introduction did exactly what it should have, it introduced DBD adequately, so good job there. The Signs and Symptoms section was terrific, extremely easy to read and had a large amount of detail, and properly cited. The Mechanism section was a mixed bag for me, I really liked the short segments in parenthesis that described the "complicated science words", but I was left wondering what the exact biological mechanism of action was...but there may not be proper secondary sources on this since so few people have had it and such a small amount of research has been done, but you may just want to admit that in that section. The Causes, Epidemiology, and Diagnosis sections all seemed to be extremely concise...but again the information might not be there, I admit I do not know. In the Treatment section I would think about describing the first successful treatment in more detail besides just mentioning the procedures, it seems like an important first step to finding a "cure" and may be a worthy addition to an already stellar article. So overall, maybe add a biological mechanism to the Mechanism section, and add some more substance to the Causes, Epidemiology, and Diagnosis section if that information is available, and if it isn't just mention that the subject is currently being researched (if it is of course), or otherwise make it clear that you didn't simply skimp on that part, which I know you guys didn't, just saying for appearances sake. Overall, this was some really good work, I am pleasantly surprised by how much I learned about DBD while reading your article! And sorry this was 8 minutes late... :)Zneuro (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Response Thank you for your comments!! Unfortunately, you are correct in saying that there is a lack of research on this disorder, which limited the amount of information we were able to put into the mechanisms, causes, epidemiology, and diagnosis sections. As for the mechanisms section, this was written using the examinations to address the mechanisms, but I can see where this would cause confusion and this will be addressed. The references to the examinations will be moved to the diagnosis section. Changes have been made to the Treatment section, I hope that these are satisfactory to you. Again, I would just like to mention that there is a lack of information and research on the topic, and we will note this in greater detail in the introduction to let future readers know this is the reason for the smaller sections. Mychm52 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary review

I think the article is very good considering you were lacking literature. I would recommend perhaps cutting the introduction section a little bit shorter, and maybe adding another section. For example, when you talk about how many people have had it and the controversies surrounding it, that could be a brand new section. I understand this may be a stretch, but I would also recommend adding some more information to the causes section, if you can find any. In addition, I might rearrange the sections...put cause first, then signs and symptoms, then diagnosis, and then treatment, with the other sections probably after that. The signs and symptoms section could use some more wikilinks as well. But overall, great job!Awhiterussian (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Response

The research done on the disorder has prevented us from making further additions to the Causes section of the page as much as we would love to go into further detail. Our only concern with making new sections is that the ones we already have are pretty small and dividing them further seems counterproductive. Also, we followed the Wiki How To sheet for medical pages and the order that we have the sections now is what they suggested there. We will definitely go through and make sure that we wiki linked any words that we could in that section. Thank you very much for your feedback! MekMU (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary review

Overall, I really liked this article. I think it was informative for the lack of resources the authors had to work with seeing it is such a rare and orphan disease. One possible addition to further improve the article would be to put a "prevention" section in. Even if there is no way to prevent the disorder, it would be noteworthy to mention. Great work on the article and good luck editing!

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback! We will definitely emphasize that there are no preventative measures for the disorder itself, but mention in the treatment section that continuous follow ups with the doctor would be beneficial for making sure that the symptoms don’t get worse. MekMU (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I am impressed by the amount of information you were able to piece together with the scarcity of sources you had to use. I actually wouldn't have guessed that was a problem without reading the not on the talk page. The images are also attention grabbing so good job on that! AAPhysiology (talk)

Author Response

Thanks for your review! We’re glad you liked it! MekMU (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thought you guys did a great job with this article, especially considering there wasn't a lot of information to go off of. Something I really liked about your article was that it was easy to read for someone that has no background of this disease whatsoever, yet thorough enough to cover the important aspects of the condition. Additionally, I thought that the entire article was really well written and clear. One suggestion that I have would be to include a bulleted list of the major symptoms used to diagnose the condition either at the beginning or end of the symptoms section - the section as a whole was written really well with great information, but for me, the major symptoms kind of got swallowed by the rest of the information. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article, and combined with your group's good use of wiki links, I definitely learned a lot! Also, great use of images! KateSage (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Author Response

As we don’t have much information in many of the other sections, we concluded formatting the symptoms in a bullet list would likely disrupt the flow of article. We appreciate your suggestion! MekMU (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Reviewer

The information on this page is clearly helpful to understanding the disease. Could definitely see more wikilinks. It is all about making sure the article will not scare away or frighten someone by science jargon. Although, the ones already placed I think are well suited. The biggest problem I have with this article is the outline. Y'all need to find a way to break up some of the bigger sections to become more specialized. I think with science articles, they can be so dynamic, and just placing a couple sections with a lot of text under it can deter a reader from finishing the whole section. If split up, they may search into more areas.

Keep working. Brolenchek (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)brolenchek

Secondary Review

I know it's difficult to write an article when there isn't much to write about, and so I just want to say that you all did a good job considering your circumstances. I noticed that you guys have a lot of instances where you use parentheses to explain technical language, but I think it is better to simply leave a link instead of trying to explain everything on one page. That way, the article becomes easier to read and appears less cluttered. One way to do this is to link to Wiktionary when referring to more obscure terms such "cutaneous". I also felt that the introduction was a bit too long considering the overall length of the article, with some portions of it better suited for other categories. For example, the sentence "There have only been 52 reported cases..." might be better placed in the epidemiology section. Lastly, make sure that you categorize your page! Still you guys did a great job overall! Marq808 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

Perhaps add something about who Bonnet, Dechaume, and Blanc were, and why the syndrome was named after them. Equinox (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)