Talk:Meningioma

Popular culture

Removed the section on popular culture. This has no place in a medical article.

Is it completely a medical article or an encyclopedic article? If something exists, such as a film with a character with a meningioma, shound not it be included, or referenced? Of course it would need caveats about where the film (or novel, or &c.) diverges from reality. Those things might be beneficial, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.8.227 (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad reference

The reference for meningioma and weed killers is dead. Also likely not a medical journal. Needs citing or will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.8.227 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting a Re-write

I'm starting a re-write on this article, specifically for WHO grading and treatment options. Any collaboration would be appreciated. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• Find a good general-purpose secondary source. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16153-9 (Lancet 2004) will sort you out.
• Stick rigidly to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS
• I would suggest using {{cite journal}} on all the journal article references
• The linkfarm at the bottom needs sorting

Hope this helps. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in getting in on this. I'll give you a hand tomorrow. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Brain tumor?

The opening sentence: "Meningiomas are the most common benign tumors of the brain" indicates that they are brain tumors. However this is not strictly true. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the opening, which should hopefully address this. --Arcadian (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "sarcoma or carcinoma" statement as they are by definition malignant, and benign tumors of mesenchymal origin often exist. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the meningiosarcoma reference as it is now considered an antiquated term. Do you guys feel that this should still remain in some capacity under "Histology", or something of the sort? Djma12 ^(talk) 14:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcadian, the re-write isn't quite right either. The opening sentence isn't explicit enough. How about "Meningiomas are tumors arising from the meninges (membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord)."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The association with blood vessels is interesting, but not part of their definition. I've altered the lead to be more encompassing. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of sources that would be less than ideal per WP:MEDRS, such as case series and other primary research studies. Axl has identified a review below. JFW | T@lk 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the nature of the beast. There are no class I data for the treatment of meningiomas. Almost all the data are retrospective. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PMID 1749851

A dated, yet still useful, source by the Radiographics journal regarding meningioma. Provided me with a good introduction to the article, other may wish to check it out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This review article is current and relevant. I accessed it through NHS Athens. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

contribution to page

There are studies below which I believe have a place within this article. I am new, have never posted here before and I will appreciate if you will take a look at the material and provide your thoughts. Thanks! Yakoun (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1: Assessment of neuropsychological parameters and quality of life to evaluate outcome in patients with surgically treated supratentorial meningiomas.

Krupp W, Klein C, Koschny R, Holland H, Seifert V, Meixensberger J.

Neurosurgery. 2009 Jan;64(1):40-7; discussion 47. PMID: 19145155 [PubMed - in process] Related Articles 2: Differential effect of surgery and radiotherapy on neurocognitive functioning and health-related quality of life in WHO grade I meningioma patients.

van Nieuwenhuizen D, Klein M, Stalpers LJ, Leenstra S, Heimans JJ, Reijneveld JC.

J Neurooncol. 2007 Sep;84(3):271-8. Epub 2007 Apr 13. PMID: 17431545 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles 3: Neuropsychological outcome after fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for base of skull meningiomas: a prospective 1-year follow-up.

Steinvorth S, Welzel G, Fuss M, Debus J, Wildermuth S, Wannenmacher M, Wenz F.

Radiother Oncol. 2003 Nov;69(2):177-82. PMID: 14643955 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related Articles 4: Late neurocognitive sequelae in WHO grade I meningioma patients.

Dijkstra M, van Nieuwenhuizen D, Stalpers LJ, Wumkes M, Waagemans M, Vandertop WP, Heimans JJ, Leenstra S, Dirven CM, Reijneveld JC, Klein M.

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Jul 24. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 18653549 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Notable cases

I attempted to add a section to the page, but it was reverted as being unreferenced. I disagree, and am restoring it here. Each of these links goes to an article where the information is properly sourced:

• Mary Tyler Moore (b. 1936) underwent surgery in May 2011 to remove a benign meningioma
• Leonard Wood (1860–1927) underwent successful surgery for a meningioma around 1910, a major advance in neurosurgery at the time
• Rene Rivkin (1944-2005)
• Liz Holzemer, wife of Major League Baseball pitcher Mark Holzemer (b. 1969)
• Davey von Bohlen (b. 1975), American musician
• Chris Weber (b. 1966), American musician, had successful surgery in 2004
• Hillary Howard, American TV news reporter, had a successful surgery to remove her meningioma in 2011
• Kathi Goertzen (b. 1958), TV news anchor in Seattle who has undergone a very public battle with recurring tumors
• Crystal Lee Sutton (1940-2009), American union organizer and inspiration for the film Norma Rae, died of a malignant meningioma

If additional sources are desired, we can provide them, or if we want to thin the list, that's probably fine too, but simply deleting the entire section out-of-hand seems excessive. Better would be to add {{cn}} tags for anything that someone wants to challenge, or bring it up here at the talkpage.

--Elonka 17:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases, I have re-added the section, with references. If there are further concerns about the section, please bring them up here at the talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Copied from Jmh649's talkpage: As the author of several lists of notable cases, perhaps I can help. Lists on Wikipedia have the same sourcing requirement as any text. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so wikilinks are not substitute for inline citations where they are required by WP:V. Each article must stand alone wrt sourcing. Saying that somebody (particularly if living) had a serious disease certainly requires a source. Please read WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases. Not all editors appreciate such lists in medical articles, because they can be viewed as trivia within a serious subject. A compromise position is to only include cases where the person has made a lasting impression wrt the condition, and for that prose may be better than a bare list (which tends to accumulate random additions). Standalone lists of notable cases are common and several are featured lists. Colin°^Talk 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to re-emphasise, WP:BLP requires the immediate removal of unsourced potentially negative text about living people, which would include a diagnosis of serious illness. Doc James' actions where in keeping with policy. MEDMOS repeats this. BLP also applies to talk pages so be very careful about composing lists anywhere on wiki that haven't been fully reliably sourced. BTW, charities and support organisations often carry lists of notable cases and these can be a useful first-start, but they tend to be over-eager to accumulate entries and are fond of including the most tenuous of retrospective diagnosis. For that reason, I wouldn't regard them as reliable sources unless it is something very obvious like an interview. Colin°^Talk 22:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I welcome your help at this article. Regarding the list above, I compiled it from Wikipedia articles which already referred to the topic, but if you have concerns about it, you are welcome to remove it from this talkpage. --Elonka 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes no real concerns now. Thanks for finding references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Most common?

According to the introduction of the article: "According to the American Brain Tumor Association, meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumor,[2] representing one third[3] of all such tumors (the most common being gliomas)." So, uh, meningiomas are the most common but gliomas are the most common? Which is it? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

According to the cited reference "Accounting for almost half of all primary brain tumors, meningiomas are now the most common primary brain tumor." Shouldn't the mis-quote be changed to the correct one? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The tumor article says that it's >50% gliomas followed by Meningiomas??? Senor Cuete (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Cell phone use

Ruslik0, First you removed the good faith edit by user:Mobsey, claiming that violated the a prohibition against primary sources. There is no such thing as specified in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Now you deleted it based on WP:RS/MC. I read this as well and it looks to me like this is a valid citation to a reputable medical journal - so it is a reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. You might not agree with what the authors say in the cited article or like this but it is a reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and so you should stop removing it. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MEDRS: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". There are potentially hundreds and thousands primary source about mobile phones and health. Are you going to cite all of them? If not, why to cherry-pick this particular one? Ruslik_Zero 17:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I very much doubt that are "hundreds and thousands primary source[sic]" about cell phones and meningioma. Today there are so many journal articles about everything medical and these are the primary source of medical information. The number of these is increasing rapidly. You can hardly cite one without "cherry picking". Senor Cuete (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can hardly cite one without cherry-picking" So, the solution is not to cite them. Google scholar gives ~1300 hits when searched for meningioma and mobile phones. For instance, why do not you want to cite this one, which apparently found that the mobile phone use protects from meningioma! Ruslik_Zero 12:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

An image of common locations would aid understanding

In the "Pathophysiology" section, under sub-heading "Locations", we have a lot of anatomical jargon, mostly wikilinked. This may be perfectly clear to any reader with enough anatomical training. However, without following most or all of those links, even a generally well-informed reader won't be able to gain a useful idea of where these locations are. The article should be able to stand alone without such extra effort. Such a context is a good candidate for one clear diagram. Please provide a schematic of the common locations for a meningioma if you can, or perhaps you could point us to such an image that we could use – or adapt – to clarify the text. I'm happy to do some work to produce or adapt a graphic for this purpose. yoyo (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Meningioma

Meningioma 2601:5CC:8200:23B0:90F0:DD94:BE3D:B332 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)