Template:Did you know nominations/Argus Retinal Prosthesis

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 19:35, 16 April 2013 by imported>Amberrock (Reviewing DYK with "?")
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Argus Retinal Prosthesis

Created by Michaelmas1957 (talk). Self nominated at 09:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC).

  • As an outside comment of a possible issue, you may want to read WP:MEDRS. There was a fluff-up with a hook about an exoskeleton a few months back, and this may have similar issues as it is on the fence between a medical article and about a product. Chris857 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Mmmmm. I can see the issues now. Sources aren't too specialised as well. Articles do relate that product can only help with a specific condition, and only then improve slightly. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggest some improvements and I'll get to work on them. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png Need a reviewer willing to work with nominator on what's needed for DYK on a medical article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps the nominator should try asking at this project; I'm told they are very helpful. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point Phil - I have mentioned this nomination there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Why is the title all caps? Other concerns include the fact that it is primarily supported by refs to the manufacturers website and the popular press. Also it is a little too promotional for my liking. For example the article states "The Argus II is primarily designed to treat sufferers of retinitis pigmentosa, a genetic ocular disease which affects approximately 1.5 million people worldwide" however the device is only approved for "adults with severe retinitis pigmentosa" by the FDA [1]. I am not sure what proportion have severe disease but it would be less than 1.5 million. There are WP:MEDMOS issues. Disagree that "Following years of testing" is proper encyclopdic tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting bit that is not mentioned is that the BEST vision achieved with the Argus 2 in the 32 pts studied was 20/1260, that is still very much blind with the WHO definition being 20/500 and the US being 20/200.Fernandes, RA (2012 Jun 25). "Artificial vision through neuronal stimulation". Neuroscience letters. 519 (2): 122–8. PMID 22342306. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we have any data on safety? Found it [2] 1 of 30 had to have the device removed. Severe adverse events occured in 36%. No AE in 7%. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png Needs a new reviewer to go over the article; should also make sure Doc James's comments are addressed, especially the promotional concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Symbol question.svg All the information Doc James provided has been included in the article, so in that respect there's no objection. However, the hook claims this is the first "functioning" artificial eye. As Doc James points out, the study reveals the Argus improves sight by only an incredibly slight margin. I'm no expert on these matters, but claiming it is "functional" when it does in fact a lot of damage to many test subjects as well as increasing eyesight by only a tad for a few others... isn't the word "functional" giving an impression which is too positive with regards to its results? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)