Talk:Dermatitis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protopic

I would like to see some mention of newer treatments such as Protopic.

I may come back and add something about these.

--bodnotbod 21:01, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC) Colloidal oatmeal (eg Dermaveen) treatment appears valuable.

DO NOT USE PROTOPIC!! WARNING ABOUT PROTOPIC XU-engineer 13:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Query dated 2004, the article linked to was in 2005, and material has since added to the article both on the products and the concerns, see Eczema#Immunomodulators. David Ruben Talk 14:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Herb Medicine

I hugest you use herb medicine, because there is no overdose, side effects, and no bad stuff. i have eczema. Herb medicene is what cured me 2 times in a row from long-term outbreaks and from the rash covering 100% of my body to 25%. XU-engineer 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbal Cure

Quoted From "The Cure For All Diseases" by Hulda Clark, PH.D., N.D.Reprint 2006 "Psoriasis and eczema are both caused by Ascaris. Their molting chemicals are quite allergenic; perhaps it is these that are affecting the skin. Since pets pick these worms up daily, there is chronic reinfection in families with pets. Herbal Parasite Programe- Balckwalnut Tincture, Wormwood, Cloves. Take over a 18 day period as prescribed by Herbalist/ Naturpath. Put in place a Maintainance Parasite Programe. 29/8/08Raefon72 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[1]

other cures

Vanos

Vanos is a very strong medicine, usually used in moderate-to severe eczema. XU-engineer 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

cloderm

Like Vanos, but cures mild eczema. XU-engineer 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Atopiclair

Atopiclair is non-steroidal lotion used to cure very mild eczema. XU-engineer 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

post these on the article itself if you guys want to.

Immunomodulators may cause cancer

Apparently, some US government scientists think Immunomodulators used to treat eczema can cause cancer of the immune system. [1] One quick question, does Betamethasone have anything to do with this?

  • Short answer: No.
  • Long answer: The immunomodulators (pimecrolimus & tacrolimus) probably have a tiny risk for longterm use (possibly by inhibiting the normal immune systems ability to remove some abnormal cells). However any chronic inflammatory condition (e.g. dermatitis), by the very nature of the increase in cell activity and replication, has a small risk of causing cancer too (see Bowen's disease). Steroids are not considered to have such risk, but used to excess may cause skin thinning (atrophy), absorption into the body causing bone demineralisation (osteoporosis) and may make skin infections more likely (fungal) or worse (viral). The dramatic improvement in patients' well being (the severe distress to children who are badly affected) needs be borne in mind when deciding whether to treat or not. -David Ruben 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Name

Surely this is more commonly known as eczema. — Chameleon 13:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Me too. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both names seem common to me and Google seems to agree. Without some stronger argument I'd rather stick with the name the original author chose. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
    Dermatitis - derma = skin & itis = inflammation. There are hundreds of other inflammatory conditions of the skin. Eczema is a more defined disease entity. JFW | T@lk 3 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
    Well if there is some technical distinction, and the article doesn't seem to make clear what it is, then shouldn't there be an article at each term? The present article uses the words in roughly equal abundances. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 22:30 (UTC)
    According to the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary, the difference is the primary cause of the condition. Eczema is an endogenous condition whereas dermatitis is caused by outside agents. This means that atopic eczema is caused by the body having an abnormal reaction to a normal stimulus (e.g., dust or pollen). In dermatitis there is an external irritant such as an acid (e.g., washing powder). However it does mention that this is not a rule and that the term "atopic dermatitis" is synonymous with eczema. I hope this helps. (and it is not too late!) Losgann February 13, 2006 22:15 (UTC)
    See The Merck Manual, Dermatitis. It suggests, like others, that both terms are synonymous.
  • Support. Dermatitis is a very generic term, as skin inflammation can occur as part of many conditions, but this article seems to be about eczema in general, if I understand things correctly. Perhaps a separate article should be written about dermatitis in general, sort of a broad summary article. I'll ask one of my dermatology friends if she can clarify at all. — Knowledge Seeker দ 4 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 

===Diagnosis Info===

The text concerning eczema diagnosis comes from MediPrimer:Eczema Primer. As the copyright holder of that website, I authorize the use of this text under the GFDL as part of Wikipedia. Yashka78 20:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the diagnosis section rather unclear.

Eczema and detergents

This new section[2] has some shortcomings: (1) it addresses the reader, (2) the references are interspersed with the text instead of using footnotes. Could I ask the contributor to pay attention to this? JFW | T@lk 22:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this still a concern? Buzybeez 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

General Notes and Discussion

It would be cool to see a discussion about the actual physiological underpinnings of this ailment, i.e. what is my skin actually doing that is causing me these problems? I don't know if this article is the right place for it, as the focus is (apparantly and appropriately) issues fo concern to patients.

There are several types of eczema, but the general hallmark is inflammation (PMID 16309494 reviews atopic eczema and may serve as a source for expansion).
Interesting, there is a decreased risk of lung cancer in people with eczema (PMID 16093291). This does not mean that you should carry on smoking. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Cleanup

Re-reading this article, I have to concluded its in a bit of a mess. In particular the 'Eczema and detergents' and 'Traditional remedies' sections need a drastic pruning rewrite. The latter half of the article reads like an overly familiar, poorly designed, health leaflet rather that a well-constructed encyclopaedic entry.

  • Advice not to use soap/detergents gets mentioned 3 times
  • re 'How to use soap when one must'
    • It is mostly a duplication of the information in the preceding 'Moisturizing' section.
    • The bit about not using lotions is wrong - the advice is of no soap/detergent, a soap-free lotion is fine (being effectively a moisturising cream with added water)
    • The suggestion about not using "any kind of ..... only if your doctor tells you to" is nonsense - no GP knows what any given soap manufacturer puts in their products, I advice patients to use a moisturising cream as a soap substitute or a non-soap moisturising wash bar, and with the advice given, I expect people to exercise some degree of common sense & caution on trying out products. I would be furious with WP if, on the basis of this article, a patient were to phone me from their local supermarket seeking advice about the dozens of soap bars displayed in front of them. This type of phrase is all too often seen and is rather infantile.
  • re 'Traditional remedies'
    • It twice duplicates information on oats/oatmeal, both in that it appears in the list and in the rather wordy description, all of which was more succinctly mentioned previously in the 'Moisturizing' section.
    • There is a huge list of remedies listed, most of which have no corresponding article, but which gives almost as much page length as the various aspects of the standard step-wise approach. Why not list just a few examples (for which there are links) in the form of a single sentence ?

I suggest a rewrite (which I'm happy to do), but being unilaterally bold without some prior discussion is probably unwise given that quite a few people have contributed to this article over some time... so I welcome anyone’s comment (positive or negative) to the points above and the direction this article needs to follow. I'll then do a rewrite in about a week; this is a wiki so my humble attempt could always be reverted :-) David Ruben Talk 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I know you'll do alright. I agree with the soapy business. JFW | T@lk 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


The entire article is a bit of a mishmash. It mirrors the state of eczema understanding and treatment -- huge disagreement among patients and practitioners alike, with lots of misinformation and myths among both. I made a few contributions, but I couldn't clean things up without starting over and seriously deleting much of what's there. My first suggestion would be to break out the different types of eczema into categories, and under each type-heading list credible theories about cause along with suggested prevention/treatment for each. Often recommendations completely conflict -- I disagree even with some of the suggestions made to fix this section -- but this is what happens in the real world, so the article should just be up front about that and list different typical recommendations, even though they conflict. That would allow new contributors to flesh out the entire state of understanding about eczema, conflicts and all. Photos of each type would be great. Another section with relevant topics and links to the research articles might work better than footnotes. For example, one topic might be eczema and probiotics (probiotics given to pregnant women reduce the incidence of eczema in infants significantly). Another topic might be eczema and hard/soft water (studies show less eczema where the water is soft versus areas that have hard water). Well-know pediatrician author T. Berry Brazelton suggests in his bestselling book Touchpoints that virtually all eczema can be prevented -- and backs this up with decades of practice -- perhaps another topic might be prevention, with links to different references and articles regarding prevention. There is a long list of topics that deserve some mention in an article about eczema, such as the "atopic march" -- the tendency for persons with eczema to develop asthma. Again, having such a heading would allow contributors to add major topics without having to rewrite the whole article.

Any valuable information?

I just wanted to ask the editors if there is any valuable areas of information on this siteEczema Treatment so that we can further develop in the area and make a valuable contribution to this article.

Thanks

Ryan

The reference you give is nicely written - I would need to take care not to find myself accidentally transfering (plagerising) paragraphs from it. The lists of actions seem sensible and yes any missing items need be incorporated into the overall reording of the article as discussed above David Ruben Talk 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a secondary source and hence not very useful compared to directly cited journal articles. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
True 2nd source, and thus not for referencing, but it is a useful list to check against that our article sensibly mentions the measures a patient can do for themselves. David Ruben Talk 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had eczema and I was wondering if I should take a pic of my arm? The eczema's gone but its discolored my skin so is that important to know? -Lexilove

Sodium

Sodium/Salt Connection: Anyone know of a Sodium/Salt Connection? I have suffered with Eczema for the past 25-30 years. I noticed recently, that the sodium/salt was causing my ezcema. I went on a low sodium diet- and my ezcema pustules have dissappeared in a matter of a few weeks. One indication of ezcema of the hands are nail cuticles receeding back with no cuticles. Anyone with ezcema of the hands should notice that the skin above the nail bed/cuticle is raised high- whereas normally, it should be tapered smooth to the nail with full and smooth cuticle. Doctors have often said that Ezcema can be caused by allergies- but I don't recall any mentioning salt as a cause. Few if any articles on the internet about a salt connection. Without a doubt, a low sodium diet has cured my Ezcema. Sodium and Pottasium act as a natural pump for our cells. I did see one article on a white paper from a doctor on a google search that mentioned that the pressure gets too great for the fluid to get back into the blood stream, causing ezcema for the elderly on their lower legs. Is there a connection to Sodium Laurel Sulfate based cleaning products? In the past, the corticoids I used help a bit- for a short time- but never got rid of it; keeping a low sodium diet did. Can we get feedback from experts in the field? When I do a search, I find little if anything in regards to the relationship of Sodium & Ezcema. Derrickhughes 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, but I have never heard of it. Please look closely at this policy page if you're considering making modifications to the article to reflect your experiences. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you this much, soaking my injured toenail by immersing my foot regularly in salt water definitely made eczema flare up, though not only on that foot, but definitely at the same time, making it one heck of a coincidence if it wasn't the cause.
As I understand things, saline solution is quie pointless as a antiseptic (whether as a gargle in cases of sore throat) or superficial skin infections/cuts - as the high-strength saline solution is more toxic to ones own cells & tissues than to bacteria etc (ie more irritation/harm caused than good). But this just makes saline solution a cause of chemical dermatitis (rather than intrinsic eczema) and need not be specifically mentioned in the article (else we will end up listing thousands of chemicals, eg bleaches, descaling solution, acids, alkalis, phenol-type organics etc etc) David Ruben Talk 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the salt-sufferer. I had to stop eating french fries & handling a variety of salted foods a while back. Sorry if this isn't the appropriate place for this comment.
I know this much, softened water used to make it awful.. Glad I don't have that anymore (city water may have chlorine and fluoride, but my skin likes it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Dermatitis and Eczema

I was going to begin working on the clean-up of both dermatitis and eczema, however, I don't think anything can be done before we reach agreement on the definitions of each term. So far I have discovered the following options:

  • They are synonymous. (The Merck Manual)
  • Eczema is an endogenous condition, dermatitis is an externally induced condition. (The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary)
  • Eczema is superficial dermatitis of unknown cause. (Mosby's Medical Dictionary)
  • Eczema is synonymous with atopic dermatitis. (My own understanding prior to this - as a medical student)

The real question is: what topics should be included in each article? It may be useful to hear which condition people who claim to have Eczema actually suffer from. --Losgann 16:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this site uses ICD-10 references, I thought I might add that under the block "(L20-L30) Dermatitis and eczema", there is the note: "In this block the terms dermatitis and eczema are used synonymously and interchangeably." This leads me to suggest the re-merging of the two articles. I also suggest Eczema should be converted into a disambiguation page linking perhaps to both dermatitis and atopic dermatitis and explaining the different uses of the word in both medicine and common use. --Losgann 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't merge. I would maintain that in their common clinical usage (ie by GPs who see far more dermatology than the limited number of dermatologists), the term Eczema applies to an endogenous condition and is a sub-type of the wider dermatitis (which included contact dermatitis, allergic and seborrhoic dermatitis etc). Not all cases of Eczema have generalised Atopy. The management of Dermatitis (ie exogenous) is identification and removal of causative agent (only sometimes possible) and treatment similar to Eczema (moisturisers, steroids), however the expectation is of non-recurrence. Whereas patients with Eczema I would expect to resee with further occurances.
  • I tend to reserve the term Dermatitis where there is either a clear exogenous causation (yes a fuller labelling with 'contact dermatitis' etc might be better), or if I have no clear idea of the diagnosis and merely wish to apply a description of the process (vs a named disease) - ie literally describing the appearance of a skin 'dermat-' inflammation 'itis'.
  • It is a bit like stating that 'Asthma' should be moved to 'Restrictive Airways disease'. It may be an acurate description, but 'Restrictive' airways disease is not solely composed of 'Asthma'.
  • I'ld need do some detailed searching, but I suspect 'atopic dermatitis' is a valid alternative to 'atopic eczema', but again I'm not sure most doctors would accept that 'eczema' has to be in those with generalised 'atopy' - ie not all 'eczema' is 'atopic eczema' (although patients with Eczema are more likely to have other atopy problems). In mathematical terms: ('Atopic dermatitis' ≡ 'Atopic Eczema') ⊆ all types of 'Eczema'
  • In summary keep Dermatitis as a general description of skin inflammation, and link that page to more specific conditions or causes (eg Contact Dermatitis, Seborrhoic dermatitis, and Eczema being just one of the possible links). Excema then should remain as the generally used term, to describe endogeneous recurring condition, often associated with atopy, and usually starting in childhood. David Ruben Talk 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Synonymous

Hi. I would like to add my vote to "synonymous" for eczema/dermatitis. In my searches, this seems to make most sense. Eczema/dermatitis is skin inflammation with underlying spongiosis. Since the understanding of what comes from within, and what from without, is woefully incomlete at present, and much may be mixed... well, I would not force a definition that way, before the facts are known. Cheers.Veebs 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)veebs

classification thoughts

I wanted to post of few of my thoughts after completing the re-do of the "types." I think eczema classification is a bit "all over the place" because it has been hard to think of it in a systematic way, and clinicians have basically made sense of it by finding clusters of eczema that were recognizable by some unifying characteristics, so that sharing advice on treatment became possible.

Unfortunately, this has over time resulted in the proliferation of synonyms, as well as questionable categories that really do not deserve a designation of their own. Some examples would be "shoe eczema" -- eczema in teens who wear overtight tennies; erythroderma -- full body eczema (aka generalized exfoliative dermatitis, red man syndrome); or my favorite, intertrigo -- eczema fat people get in their pendulous skin folds. Oi! The seduction of jargon... :-)

I would like to see a re-think of eczema classification, so that the irritant type becomes a primary consideration, and concerns with how much of the body is affected, or where on the body, or whether the irritant is touched, inhaled, or ingested, should be second order or third order considerations. After all, if one is reacting to nickel, that is the cogent problem, and how exactly it is getting into the body should be part of the problem solving within that category.

Some may question my including DH in the eczemas. I have done this for the following reasons: 1) DH does not seem any more bullous than dyshidrosis, and in fact perhaps less (in terms of #s of patients experiencing true bullae). 2) Great many DH patients get initially misdiagnosed as having just plain eczema, and suffer a great deal of agony trying to figure out what is going on. A list that includes DH is therefore patient-friendly; it enables them to compare and make sense of their disorder. 3) Some sources (such as NZ DermNet) mentions DH under "eczema, dermatitis and allergies" and so I am not creating a precedent here.

Submitted for your consideration. 204.94.16.45 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)V.B.


I am very new to this, in fact its my first post! I do not know if everything I post must be referenced with links? If I am not presenting this correctly I apologise, the information in this post can be checked by doing your own research. Losgann is half correct regarding self and non-self factors. Dust and pollen are in fact not endogenous, but "out of the body" non-self factors too, in fact they are allergens. Endogenous, is something from within,of "self"; such as a stimuli from the chemical interactions of cells, due to an increase in stress hormone levels, from severe stress, or other alterations in gland secretions due to some other cause. However, these skin conditions stem from a genetic predisposition (due to a mutated gene or genes.there may be more than one)to "Atopy". Under this umbrella come all the atopic conditions which are the result of allergies. As with all autoimmune (Auto=Greek=self) predispositions, it can be stimulated idiopathically (of self) or by non-self factors, as Losgann states. Different cells of the immune system malfunction as a consequence of the transcribed information (from the DNA by the RNA's) stored in these mutated genes, stimulated by the response to the allergy,the end result being the condition manifested in the skin. So although there are different manifestations , they all stem from the same cause, a genetic predisposition to atopy. These faulty genes cannot be removed or cured, but in cases of non-idiopathic cases, finding non-self factors which stimulate this response is a huge bonus,avoiding them will prevent these faulty genes from being reactive; the difficulty is there may be so many! Idiopathic cases are different, because the response is occuring endogenous, within, of "self", and therefore the only way is by drug suppression of this abnormal immune response. As with all autoimmune conditions they wax and wane in severity, and there may be short or long periods of remission. There is no cure for either,faulty genes as yet cannot be repaired. So although the manifestations of these atopic conditions may be different and are therefore named different,yet the cause is the same, being mutated genes.

Incidentally, Dermatitis Herpetiformis is an autoimmune IgA mediated bullous condition,an abnormal immune response (autoimmune) which is stimulated by an allergy to gluten. It is not a phenotype of eczema, but of bullous disease. There is a genetic predisposition to autoimmune disease, which is only stimulated due to the allergic response to gluten.Dermatitis Herpetiformis does not occur idiopathically. Eczema and other atopic diseases the predisposition is to Atopy, (allergic conditions) either idiopathically or by enviromental non-self factors. Snowfairy6 feb12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfairy6 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External Resource for Eczema

I keep adding my site which has documented text and photos of total eczema cure. Someone keeps deleting it. What? You don't want people to know there is a cure? Eczema Cure Story Eczema Cure Story, documented, photographed.

I want to add this link but someone keeps deleteing it Baby Eczema Treatments Let me know what you think.

Michele Ang Eczema Cure Story, documented, photographed. Cured. Learn how she did it.


  • Eczema Some hard to find information specific for eczema.

The article reflects current medical thinking which has little help associated with it. Alongside the parroting of approved medical science, I suggest a new dynamic: cure & manageable symptoms directory. After all, that's why someone comes to wikipedia isn't it. Medical science is constantly evolving and has no unifying theory aka E=mcc dealing with disease often means taking the road less travelled.

For my son, we avoided all pork and supplemented the diet with fish oil. Another tigger was color dyes. His eczema is under control, not a factor.64.203.19.99 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Beg to differ, but wikipedia is not a directory nor a how-to-guide, but an encyclopedia for which each fact or opinion must be WP:Verified by WP:Citing from WP:Reliable sources. Use Google to find adverts, personal opinions/blogs or pseudoscience (remember WP:No original research is policy and see WP:What Wikipedia is not) David Ruben Talk 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

eh... a rave is so tempting...

Unfortunately, since Wiki has certain (well justified) rules, those of us who have radically different takes on eczema causation and treatment must tread lightly.

I quite agree with you. Current medical treatment focuses solely on symptom suppression, and is not even good at that, in many cases. (Patients, rathen than inadequate treatments, are then blamed.) The parents of severely afflicted children who persist in seeking a cure are discouraged by the drs. The nasty side-effects of steroids and other immune suppressants get short shrift. And patients are often steered away from effective home remedies! It's a disgrace. Post your story where other parents can see it!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by V.B. (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 July 2006
Please do not post personal stories - wikipedia is not a blog site and any personal opinions within the article space would not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria and breach WP:No original research policy. David Ruben Talk 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Which major league idiot always removes my chances?

Like the discussion board neurodermatitis.com, the major board for atopic dermatitis? or the FACT of atopic dermatitis associated with pseudomons (google over 80.000 hits, whatever may be the reason and whatever may come first)?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.133.56 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 30 August 2006
Above question fails to WP:Assume good faith, which is policy and was posted unsigned (again a policy). However to answer the questions:
  • re neurodermatitis.com external link, this is not the major board for atopic dermatitis, as my edit summary explained "rv external link - discussion boards generaly not good external links and one with just 134 members is hardly notable". Suggest see WP:External links.
  • re pseudomonas - aside from being uncited (minor issue), the information was added as a statement without any English to explain cause or possible significance. Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts (even if true), see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Google is generally a poor choice for medical or scientific research - by comparison PubMed search for eczema pseudomonas gives just 22 hits, few of which of direct relevance, since 1964 with no papers submitted for almost the last 4 years - so hardly major topic of research (eczema generates 12246 hits). So I think it does matter as to cause (due to damaged skin condition itself or secondary antibiotic use) and significance is very important if this fact is to be included (does it contribute to ongoing skin irritation, frequently give rise to unrecognised secondary infection or of little clinical significance in majority of cases ?) David Ruben Talk 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted some stuff that was missing references

Will delete again if references are not provided

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.133.56 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 30 August 2006
Thanx Idiot. Was't a TEST. I have a PhD AND Eczema but thanx for deleting my corrections!
Deleting half of an article is hardly the way to go about fix missing references. Please don't vandalise the article and try fixing it through slightly more conventional means. See WP:CITE#How_to_ask_for_citations.
Frank Quist 01:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not? This is the only way to come by the "owner" of this article! Quit pro quo! Otherwise I delete!
Provice at least a scientific reference or 2 Million Google links or I will delete!

Eczema and detergents, provide more Medline links or I will delete!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.133.176 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 August 2006
Sign your talk pages submissions, its policy, with 4 tildes ~~~~. And wikipedia is not about "Quit pro quo! Otherwise I delete" - this is not collaborative, but disruptive behaviour.
  • eczema detergents gets 146 hits on PubMed, many of which are directly relevant. Encyclopaedias document current accepted knowledge (eg PMID 15953066 in Hong Kong and currently link to Medline article), even if the evidence base is quite thin (eg PMID 16911274). David Ruben Talk 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
User:128.122.133.176 re further blanking (see 1 & 2), as per Template:blanking warning: Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks David Ruben Talk 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest splitting

The treatment section is pretty long. It looks like it would be best to split it up to keep the length manageable and focussed. I added the tag in the article, but if you disagree, please feel free to take it out! Skumarla 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak disagree (but open to change my mind) - In general article length should be kept down, but this overall article current makes a satifying whole (as for length, see Diabetes mellitus which is also very long, and treatment section of eczema is less that that given over to diabetes management pages). David Ruben Talk 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Although you have a point in that articles should be kept as concise as possible, I think that the sections on treatment are necessary to the article. What maybe should be trimmed down is the section on eczema and detergents, as it seems a bit repetitive. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, it belongs in the same article.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok no one else has come forth in support of the suggestion (but a sensible suggestion Skumarla), so I'll close this for now and have removed the split-tag. David Ruben Talk 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Inapropriate word

The word "Buttocks" has been removed from the paragraph on atopic ezcema, as it was inapropriate.

What would you prefer? Arse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Request external link allergymatters.com

We are an allergy company that provides an allergy learning centre, allergy product ratings and reviews. Our site is recommended by top practitioners in the field. We would like to know whether our site (allergymatters.com)is qualified. so that more allergy sufferers can benefit from this valuable resource. SOrry if we put our message in the wrong place. Thank you very much217.36.223.45 10:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite request on this and other pages (thus following WP:SPAM guideline re not directly inserting external links to website one is directly involved with), but no not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a directories listings and a commericial site is therefore not an appropriate external link (see WP:EL for policy). As your site introduces itself "Allergymatters is a unique One Stop Allergy Shop selling...". Please do stay though and improve our articles (if you sign up, it will be easier to direct you to relevant help & policy pages). Yours David Ruben Talk 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

External forum link: www.babycenter.com

Recent external link dispute re "http://www.babycenter.com/comments/baby/babyills/babyrash/10872 Forum for Parents Who Have Children/Babies with Eczema". I generally try to follow WP:1RR, so having had my revert re-reverted, lets open this up for wider debate:

  • Delete - Generally, unless the actual subject matter of the article, blogs/forums should not be linked. They fail to add additional information to the article, nor contain a depth of information that is beyond what should be included in an encyclopaedic entry. Wikipedia is IS NOT a listing directory (use Google for that). Principles are as set out in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. David Ruben Talk 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only should the external links guidelines apply, but also I think we need to be very cautious about linking to a site without medial provenance on a subject that is medical. It seems irresponsible for an encyclopedia. --Siobhan Hansa 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the consensus on Talk:Psoriasis#Babycenter.com.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At least include the links below so Wikipedia can really help people cure themselves of eczema

Instead of putting mere propaganda for the PHARMACEUTICAL companies to sell more drugs. Of course if your top editor is on the payroll of the drug companies then wiki has been bought. Oh yeah, eczemacure.info is MY SITE, that is me in those photos. I know first hand what eczema looks and feels like because I personally suffered. And I know how eczema is cured because I got well. And I stay well. So how about letting other poor eczema sufferers know how it is done? Huh?

Dealing with symptoms is of little help. The real cure means addressing causes!

External link: www.eczemacure.info Eczema is cureable. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. I got well. You can too. This is my full story. For Free! http://www.eczemacure.info

External link: www.curezone.com http://curezone.com/dis/1.asp?C0=122 Eczema - Prevention & Curing Protocol

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodsamaritan55 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a self help manual. We are trying to develop an encyclopedia article based on high standards of verifiability from reliable sources. That means tested and peer reviewed assertions, not anecdotal stories, either wonderful, like your own, or terrible, like some others on the web. Linking to your website does not further the encyclopedic purpose of the article, it merely promotes your particular story. I'm not even going to start on the curezone site. It's the sort of thing Wikipedia should never be linking to.
Also, please do not question the good faith of editors on this article unless you have evidence they are infact on the payroll of pharmacuticle companies and are editing the article from a non-neutral point of view. --Siobhan Hansa 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

External link: www.eczemacure.info in UNVERIFIABLE???? with PHOTOS??? Why? You think that is make-up??? In fact, it is the western pharmaceutical medical DISINFORMATION that is junk because it admits they have NO CURE, yet they still recommend all their SNAKE - OIL potions of STEROIDS and EMOLIENTS. I and my brother used your FALSE ECZEMA DEFINITIONS for YEARS and it got us NOWHERE!!! When we used the TRUTH CONCEPTS about DETOXIFICATION and NUTRITION, we got WELL and stay WELL Your current definition of ECZEMA is FALSE because it gets people NOWHERE!!! MY DEFINITIONS OF ECZEMA ARE THE TRUTH because it CURES PEOPLE OF ECZEMA FOREVER Eczema is cureable. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. I got well. You can too. This is my full story. For Free! http://www.eczemacure.info

WHAT DO I WANT FROM WIKIPEDIA on ECZEMA???

  • - You work and read my website and pick up information AND PHOTOS from there.
  • - You go to curezone.com and get information there.
  • - You go to Andreas Moritz site and books especially liver flush and get information there.
  • - You go to shirleys wellness cafe and get information from her.
  • - Your encyclopedia should include VERIFIABLE TRUTH STORIES OF PEOPLE WHO GOT WELL.
  • - Your pharmaceutical definitions are FALSE because PEOPLE DO NOT GET WELL.
  • - Get a clue... put EDITORS in YOUR Eczema Wikipedia who have suffered from ECZEMA and GOT CURED and STAY CURED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.177.232.134 (talk)
Please read and try to understand the Wikipedia policies of verifiablity from reliable sources. Self published websites are not considered reliable sources, so photos on your website do not meet Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. The threshhold for inclusion is verifiability from reliable sources, not truth. You say what you want from Wikipedia's article on eczema is for people to read your website. That really isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to create an open content encyclopedia. If your purpose in being here is to get people to read your website for their own benefit you're in the wrong the place. You should look elsewhere for vehicles to reach out to others. Wikipedia is not a way to tell your own story. --Siobhan Hansa 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Your case, a "study" with n=1, means nothing. And you might want to try to understand how Wikipedia works: there is no "top editor", and editors are not assigned to articles. Also, boldface all-caps shouting impresses no one, at least not positively. Give it a rest. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Look pal, you don't have to put my link in your eczema wiki page if you don't want to. So this is not a self serving thing so this is immaterial.
  • But you have to put TRUTH INFORMATION there and there are many from curezone.com, shirleyswellnesscafe, etc. etc. on what ECZEMA really is.
  • Your policy of verifiable reliable sources is good if YOU APPLY IT CORRECTLY... which YOU DO NOT!
  • Your so-called sources NOW are verifiably reliably FALSE!!!!
  • Just because you have a CRIME SYNDICATE putting up dozens of FALSE websites does not mean it is RELIABLE.
  • Your Pharmaceutical DISINFORMATION shows that your CURE Rate is n=0 (big fat ZERO) therefore your eczema information is FALSE!!!
  • Get a clue... put EDITORS in YOUR Eczema Wikipedia who have suffered from ECZEMA and GOT CURED and STAY CURED.

Are you an eczema sufferer? If you are, have you been cured? I say you use EXPERTS who are people who have experienced eczema and got cured and stayed cured. I say you use EXPERTS who are people who have cured people of eczema and those people stayed cured.

NOW, do you want me to go on furnish you n=so many people cured?

"The threshhold for inclusion is verifiability from reliable (FALSE) sources, not truth." So wikipedia is not interested in the truth. Wikipedia just regurgitates those who publish repeatedly FALSE information. Wikipedia does not help inform people cure themselves because you have happily posted FALSE information regarding Eczema.

TRUTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT! Your eczema DISinformation today is mere false religion spouted by the pharmaceutical industry in so many websites they also financed. You have been duped.

Get a clue... put EDITORS in YOUR Eczema Wikipedia who have suffered from ECZEMA and GOT CURED and STAY CURED. If this team of editors currently in wikipedia eczema have never suffered eczema and have not been cured, then you have no business running this show. Get out and resign your position and get new editors who are INTERESTED IN TRUTH and HAVE EXPERIENCED TRUTH. Because only the TRUTH cures people of Eczema.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.232.134 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 October 2006
User:203.177.232.134 I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a soap box to express ones personal opinions or to carry out a debate (instead it may comment on a debate held externally in the real world by citing from reliable sources). The viewpoint is of WP:Neutral point of view not Wikipedia:Scientific point of view, so yes we report on flat-earth theories as people did once hold this viewpoint, but wikipedia is not here to re-educate those who still might hold this view. Similarly routinely Bloodletting to cure most ills is now considered factually without clinical basis, yet wikipedia has an article on the subject.
Details in an encyclopaedia must be WP:Cited from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify. Personal testaments does not count as a suitable reliable source (and that of an individual counts as personal research - see WP:No original research). Please read these links to policies.
Your above essay is in breach of WP:Assume good faith - you can not go asserting that other editors are in some Pharma-conspiracy. This is a collaborative work and editors need to work constructively together, you have already been advised once about not shouting (use of capitals).
Please also note the guideline to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages - use 4 tildes "~~~~".
I suggest you read the above linked policies, take a wikibreak to think these over, and then decide if you wish to engage constructively with other editors. Further incivility and bad faith is liable to lead to a request for your URL-address account being blocked from wikipedia. David Ruben Talk 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one editor here who has dealt successfully with own eczema. This one. And it was not via liver flushes. There are many types of eczema, and what may work for you and your type would be useless for other types. For example, there are eczemas caused by exposure to various allergens or irritants, and the most important thing there is to find and avoid the cause. It is true that dermatological advice is often lacking when it comes to eczema. But there is no need for insults here, nor for true believerism. Good luck with your web site. 74.38.112.235 04:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)V.B.

Cures

Of course eczema is curable. It depends on what kind and many other factors. If you would read the section on eczema types in this wiki article, you will see that clearly pointed out. Please read what is posted already before making criticisms that may not apply. Thank you. V.B. 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)V.B.


Whether "eczena" is curable, of course, depends on what you mean by "eczema". Alec - U.K. 04:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by eczema is what the wiki eczema article says. I think we have settled the question of eczema only referring to atopic eczema, haven't we? 205.119.60.112 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)V.B.

I would like to add the Eczema Cure Protocols http://www.eczemacure.info/cure-protocol/ Cures, not treatment. Free. No catch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.200.161 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are enough studies and patient evidence to prove that eczema is often caused by the common treatment (topical steroid cream). A small problem becomes a big problem. You can read plenty about it here. http://kellypalace61.web.officelive.com/default.aspx The Japanese seem to be getting on top of the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellissimo (talk • contribs) 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

External links

I would like to add a section on places to go to for support for those suffering with eczema. For instance, forums for parents with children with these conditions, such as [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie Prouse (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Skin_Disorders/Eczema/ as a resource --ArmadilloFromHell 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to link to even a dmoz directory on a medical related article like this. I think there's a more pronounced responsibility not to funnel readers towards unreliable information, and I don't think the dmoz process is rigorous enough for a subject like this. --Siobhan Hansa 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll defer to your view, but IMO for medical stuff, I think DMOZ is fairly good, compared to other parts of DMOZ. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think, add it, it seems to have lots of useful links for people to explore. My 2 cents. 170.215.92.199 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)V.B.
Aloe Vera & bee Propolis has relieved the effects of Eczema in a great many of the people we have sold to. Hopefully, our link to [4] (Aloe Propolis Cream) will be acceptable in this wiki. Garyscrook 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Links to websites advertising products or services (especially ones for purchase) are not appropriate links on Wikipedia. Please see the external links guidelines for more on what is and isn't appropriate. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Atopic details and theories

DocFeelyMC: I deleted most of your edit since the idea is to keep the main eczema page simple and easy for laypersons to understand. How about posting the details and theories behind atopic dermatitis at the atopic dermatitis Wiki entry? That will make it possible there to focus on other theories as well; here the scope does not permit it.

"The pathophysiology is characterized by inappropriate Th2 cell activation leading to subsequent focal allergic response. ... The theory behind this trend is that oversanitation may impair proper development of children's immune systems leading to inappropriate IgE responses in response to common enviromental substances." V.B. 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)V.B.


alternative treatment

since there is no cure for eczema in conventional medicine (only 'control' or suppression), many people to turn to alternatives, however this area of the article is severely lacking information. in the interest of balance i would like to include reference to an excellent clinical outcome study of patients at bristol homeopathic hospital, carried out over a 6 year period on over 23000 out-patients. this study found that in under 16s with eczema there was an 82% improvement in their condition following homeopathic treatment. 82.35.24.116 10:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC) cazldn.

Which kind of eczema was the study for? How many under 16s were in the eczema section? Any other details you can give us? 205.119.60.109 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)V.B.

The article does not specify types of eczema, since the study includes many other conditions it does not go into details about each individual complaint.

There were 448 patients with eczema, all under 16.

Outcomes were based on a 7 point Likert-type scale at the end of each follow-up consultation compared to an initial baseline obtained in a detailed 1st consultation. Objective parameters were incorporated into the assessment when possible. Each patients attended for an average of 3-4 consultations (1st one 45 mins, subsequent follow-ups 15 mins)

Results: 

          45% were much better
          23% were better
          14% were slightly better
          15% no change
          1%  slightly worse
          1%  worse
          0%  much worse

Don't know what other details you would like. All physicians partaking in the study were medically qualified for at least 15 years and had passed a post-grad medical membership exam of the UK Faculty of Homeopathy. cazldn 82.44.233.168 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


What were the response of the control and/or conventional treatment groups? What constituted an 'improvement'? What was the follow up remision rate? Drop out rate? Batty 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

These were patients attending a homeopathic hospital and therefore none was treated conventionally at this time. Many of these patients had, however, already tried conventional treatment and were not satisfied. It is very difficult to do studies of homeopathy which compare it with conventional treatment because most patients are either attending a homeopathic hospital or an individual private practitioner. People generaly consult a homeopath when they have already tried conventional treatment. Clinics treating large numbers of patients conventionally do not generally offer homeopathy. There are studies which compare homeopathy favourably to conventional medicine and to placebo-controlled groups, but none has been carried out for eczema (yet!).

Assessments took into account the overall state of health, and the nature and severity of each of the patients symptoms were recorded in detail (see above for scoring citeria). This is actually a superior way of assessing results since it takes into account overall health and not just single complaints. For example, a conventional study of eczema would only look at eczema, it would not look at concomitant symptoms, or those which resulted from suppression of eczema.

When you say what is the remision [sic] rate? do you mean the rate of relapse? Remission is lessening/disappearance of symptoms so i'm not sure what you mean. If you mean how long did remission last, i'm afraid there is no data. (Patients often go for years with little or no recurrence, in my experience ....compared with those using steroids who usually flare-up very quickly on stopping/reducing treatment.) cazldn 82.44.233.168 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop out rate was <5%


Oh, and the paper cited is not about treatment of eczema, nor about '23,000' out-patients, nor can a clinical outcome study with the parameters and methods mentioned in the cited article be considered an 'excellent' study! Please cite the actual study you read, or update the section. Batty 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

i am trying to get hold of a copy of the article and will fill out these details for you asap. thanks for your feedback, batty. sorry the figure is not the same as the one quoted - this was from another source & i have queried it with them - in the meantime i have changed it to 6544. 80.195.229.123 12:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) cazldn


I have clarification now - 23473 consultations involving 6544 patients, 448 of whom were under 16s with eczema.

Clinical outcome studies are a good way of assessing the results of homeopathic treatment. You cannot use conventional methods because homeopathy is based on a completely different paradigm from conventional medicine. Conventional methods are not refined enough to take into account all the variables used by a homeopath to assess health. Many studies which are considered acceptable by those with no understanding of homeopathy do not assess homeopathy as it is actually practised. A study which satisfies both conventional and homeopathic principles is very difficult to design, and has to be done with the input of homeopaths - otherwise it would be like asking a chemist to design a biophysics study. You simply cannot test something if you don't understand what to test. cazldn 82.44.233.168 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


I strongly suggest to remove the reference to this study and in general to homeopathy. This discipline does have proved working in any serious study (regarding Spence's study see [5] and [6]) and is merely considered pseudoscience. Suggesting that homeopathy helps treating eczema is misleading and potentially dangerous. Nova77 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This discipline does have proved working...

huh?

There are lots of studies which demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy, including double blind RCTs, meta analyses and subjective studies. [7]

Suggesting homeopathy does not help eczema is denying the experiences of thousands, and denying a potentially beneficial treatment to eczema sufferers. Has any of the objectors here actually been to a homeopath for treatment? cazldn 82.44.233.168 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


I second that. The study referred to was not a double-blind clinical trial. It only examined people who'd deliberately sought out homeopathic treatment and returned for further treatment, so there's a pretty serious issue with selection bias here. I'm going to remove the section on the study at the very least. Jamrifis 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the whole homeopathy section, since there is no reference to any serious study (and it has never really proved working. See homeopathy for more informations). Nova77 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


The value of a double blind trial has been disputed on many occasion, eg:

Devereaux et al, (Dec 2004) J Clin Epidemiology vol 57: p1232
Verhagen et al (2001), J Clin. Epid. 54: pp.651-654
Jahad et al (1996), Controlling Clinical Trials; 17: 1-12

It is not the be-all and end-all of proof and is still subject to bias. Just because a trial is a double blind RCT, doesn't make it valid in testing homeopathy if there is no consideration of how homeopathy is practised in the real world.

The quality of RCT has been defined as the likelihood of the trial design to generate unbiased results that are sufficiently precise and allowing application in clinical practice [my emphasis] (Verhagen et al (2001), J Clin. Epid. 54: pp.651-654)

It is absurd to suggest that it is invalid because subjects 'sought out' homeopathic treatment. When you go the doctor, you seek out conventional treatment, don't you? If it works, does this mean your recovery was due to placebo effect because of your faith in your doctor? Patients in conventional studies all sought out conventional treatment! Why do you assume that only homeopathy is affected by placebo effect? (especially with all the slagging off of homeopathy that goes on... you'd think homeopathy patients would have negative placebo effect!) In any case, your comment is inaccurate since these patients were all referred by GPs or hospital consultants. If there was any 'seeking' going on, it was for a cure, since they had already been failed by conventional medicine. As for selection bias, you will see if you read the study, that subjects were randomly selected.

And I don't understand your point about 'returning for further treatment'.... each person had 3 or 4 consultations during which their response was assessed and, if necessary, the dose adjusted... so what? Why does reurning for further appointments invalidate the study? I believe it is common practice for patients to see their dermatologists repeatedly ...are they all suffering from a misplaced faith that the dermatologist is going to provide some miracle cure? If these people were all delusional fools, you'd think conventional medicine would have already helped them.

Because i think eczema sufferers have a right to at least make up their own minds about this, I'm reinstating the section on homeopathy, tho i will amend parts of it, to take into account your comments.


Having read-up on it, the study wasn't even about eczema. It was just a hilariously flawed, biased, subjective and sloppy study of homeopathy per se, carried out by some homeopaths. The sole argument in its favour appears to be that it was a very large flawed, biased, subjective and sloppy study. Jamrifis 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, a subjective study is a perfectly ligitimate way of assessing health. What is the problem with people saying they 'feel better'? Surely making people 'feeling better' is the aim of healthcare. If patients feel better they are also less of a drain on medical resources, which I would have thought was actually a good thing, regardless of whether or not it can be proved to the satisfaction of those with no understanding of homeopathy. I have many patients who have felt worse after conventional treatment as a result of suppression. For example, one patient who's eczema 'disappears' when she uses hydrocortisone, develops symptoms of fibromyalgia. When she stops the steroids, the fibromyalgia gets better. So if you were only looking at the eczema you might say it had gone, but 'feeling better' is the superior judge of her overall health.

The fact is, these were all people who were dissatisfied with what conventional medicine had to offer and that 82% of them felt better after homeopathic treatment. This is reason enough to include a reference to homeopathy in this section.

Secondly, you obviously have not read up on it - if you had taken the time to read the article you would see it was carried out by doctors with at least 15 years experience and not by 'some homeopaths'. And since you didn't read it, i think we can reject your other comments.

Lastly, on a pedantic, philosophical point, you must realise that it is impossible to prove something works ... only that something doesn't work. so i reckon the burden of proof is on the doubters!

cazldn 82.44.233.168 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument, one that can be made by any pedlar of snake oil: "until you can prove my 'preparation' doesn't work I'll go on making any claims I like." No, double blind trials aren't fool proof, but they're still a lot better than asking a group of people who already have a bias in favour of homeopathy how they feel after paying lots of money for homeopathy. At the very least, double blind trials reduce this kind of gratuitous bias. The burden of proof is on advocates of a given treatment to prove their therapy of choice is more effective than placebo before they start charging people money for it. Lastly, a study that is not even specific to eczema, nor indeed to any specific physical complaint, has no place in an article on eczema. Jamrifis 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


its not absurd - please see the section on karl popper, one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 21st century, where it states

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive...

you are mistaken to assume the patients in this study already had a bias towards homeopathy - they were referred by their GPs or other hospital consultants, and many had already exhausted conventional options. if they first went to their doctor and were given medicine which made them better, would you say they were biased towards conventional medicine and that was placebo effect?

further, they were not paying 'lots of money' - this was an NHS hospital and therefore free.

why does it matter that the study was not specific to eczema? several complaints were looked at but if you read the paper, it is clear that the eczema patients were distinguished form the others. i think it is fairly obvious that you haven't actually read this article, jamrifis; if you had you would know that figures were given for each individual physical complaint.

cazldn 82.44.233.168 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Popper's ideas apply to scientific medicine and homeopathy. Both make falsifiable claims. The claims of homeopaths have been falsified to beyond any reasonable doubt, indeed the whole basis of homeopathy could be said to have been fairly thoroughly falsified. The problem here is that altmed folks tend to reject sensible means of testing, and falsifying, a hypothesis. Means like the double blind trial. They set the burden of proof insanely low, and the burden of disproof insanely high, at least as far as their own ideas are concerned.

Your "pedantic philosophical point" contains an obvious non-sequitur. Neither Popper, nor any other scientist, ever claimed that the unprovability of a hypothesis meant that the burden of proof rested on the 'doubters'. It merely means that though we can't verify the ultimate truth of most claims, we can judge the extent to which a claim is consistent with the evidence. The burden is always on the advocate of a position to show their claims are consistent with the evidence.Jamrifis 11:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamirifis states:

The claims of homeopaths have been falsified

Are you seriously suggesting that the experienced doctors in this study, working for a National Health Service hospital attached to University College Hospital, London, falsified their results?
Could you provide some evidence for this claim?
If not, then could you please stop deleting my entry. You do a disservice to readers in not allowing them to make up their own minds.
If you still dispute the inclusion of this entry, could you please do me the courtesy of responding to the points I made above which addressed concerns raised.
cazldn82.45.189.76 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I only deleted one paragraph of this article, once. My tone, thus far, has not been impolite, so please check the edit history before you start slinging accusations.
You're the one who tried to invoke Popper, now you seem to misunderstand his basic terminology. I used the term 'falsified' in the Popperian sense. You argued, citing Popper, that the burden of disproof rests on the doubters as no idea can ever be proved, only disproved. The point is that this is an erroneous reading of his thinking. It's down to the advocates of a position to show it can't be disproved (falsified). This goes for homeopaths as well as scientists. Scientists and homeopaths both make falsifiable claims, ie. factual statements about the real world that can be shown to be false, and in this sense the whole basis of homeopathy is fairly easy to falsify, that is: to show to be false, erroneous, silly, whatever. I did not allege any results had been forged - I think that is extremely clear.
And all of this is kind of irrelevant. A general, encyclopaedic article on eczema is no place to include information from a study that wasn't on eczema, ostensibly to provide publicity for a given type of treatment. Post a link or something. Jamrifis 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologise, it was somone else who deleted it that time and they did it without leaving a comment here - so because you had commented I thought it was you. sorry!
I agree this talk about Popper is irrelevent - i only mentioned it as an aside and the bit about 'letting the doubters prove it' was actually a joke. It was 2 lines out everything I wrote and yet you ignored all the other points I made about the study. I do actually have a scientific background myself (as do many homeopaths) and used to work in conventional health so i do take slight exception to the distinction you made between 'homeopaths and scientists'. But i would rather stick to the subject of eczema & homeopathy, than get into a philosophical discussion. Better to do that on the homeopathy page.
No-one has yet responded to the points I made in answer to the original concerns about my entry. This article does show that 82% of patients responded well to homeopathic treatment, most of whom had not been helped by conventional treatment. It was done by experienced doctors in a free NHS hospital. I know the study is not perfect but it surely merits inclusion. It would be unscientific to dismiss the possibility that homeopathy does actually work out of hand.
The study was about eczema - 448 under 16s with eczema were studied as part of a larger study of 6544 out-patients. The study was divided into different complaints - the eczema part was distinct from the rest.
My motivation is only to provide information which may help people with a complaint which cannot be cured conventionally.
Sorry, don't know what you mean by 'post a link'? Link to what?
cazldn 82.35.240.22 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"Let them make up their own minds" is not a valid reason for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Swakeman 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How does providing only one viewpoint help inform anyone in a balanced way? I did include the line 'homeopathy remains controversial...' as a compromise . Its up to folks to read the study if they are interested, reject it if they're not. cazldn 82.35.240.22 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No. It's up to us to provide information that properly reflects the significant opinions of experts in the subject area. But there is clear consensus here at the moment that you have not provided evidence that homeopathy is generally considered an effective treatment. Please do not add the text back until you can change this consensus. If you have other references that provide better support you should provide them. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"This article does show that 82% of patients responded well to homeopathic treatment, most of whom had not been helped by conventional treatment."
82% (or however many) of those who returned for further treatment said they had experienced improvement. That hardly eliminates selection bias. Or placebo. Jamrifis 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, it takes much more than a single study, and a lot more sound science (make sure that the obvious factors are ruled out) before claiming that an approach is really effective. Nova77 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

immunomodulators

someone has requested a citation for the following

However, such suppression is believed by alternative health practitioners to have possible adverse health effects.

whilst i will be happy give you any number of references to books which support this assertion, i'm not quite sure why this requires a citation. my assertion was that alternative practitioners believe this; i was not claiming that it had been proved.

it is something which is observed frequently in homeopathic practice. for instance, asthma patients often present with a history of suppressed eczema. During homeopathic treatment, the more serious complaint (the asthma) gets better first, while the eczema can worsen for a time until it too clears. while allopathic treatment suppresses the symptoms, homeopathy brings them out. homeopathy thus, aims to reverse the disease process to bring about cure.

if you would like references to books to support this belief i'll supply them, but any text book on homeopathic philosophy will explain this observation. cazldn 80.195.229.123 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Alternative practitioners do not look well on symptom suppression in eczema and other diseases, preferring to address root causes. As this is one of the underlying assumptions of alternative medicine in general, I think reference need not be provided, unless perhaps a wiki link to an article on alternative med. 205.119.60.104 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)V.B.
I would like though to request such a reference be provided. No one (even conventionally) will dispute that such treatments might have adverse effects (all conventional drugs are licensed with a published list of possible side effects). However, these are not what I think the above quote is about, but instead a more general principle of suspected "harm" from the very intended mode of action of these drugs. So whilst the articles on CAM might discuss being simpler treatment (vs cost of modern pharmaceuticals) or with fewer directly apparent side effects etc, a specific concern that immune-modulation in this condition is thought problematic in itself, would seem to require and benefit from a citation to verify that this view is so held. I agree that fact that Alternative practitioners hold this view should not be terribly difficult to confirm nor accept (this is quite separate from more contentious if/how CAM works/compares to conventional medicine or if it is actually proved such concerns have been confirmed, which needs careful proof WP:Cited from WP:RS to WP:V), so just a single reliable source of this viewpoint being held would suffice :-) David Ruben Talk 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

take your pick, david - [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] cazldn 82.44.233.168 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Adding new external links

I'd like to add two external links to this page:
Eczema Guide - A patient guide to Eczema written by Drs. Neil Shear, Ron Vender, Richard Thomas, and Bonnie L. Kuehl, PhD. No commercial affiliation of any sort.
Eczema Treatment - A collection of articles on Eczema treatment from Skin Therapy Letter (Skin Therapy Letter© is indexed by the US National Library of Medicine and listed in MEDLINE and Index Medicus, as well as being a featured journal in the Dermatology Publisher's Circle of Medscape) No commercial affiliation either.


Please let me know if anyone has objections/questions. Thank you.

R.B. 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi R.B. These both seem to be run by skincareguide.ca. You say the two sites have no commercial affiliations, but skincareguide.ca doesn't appear to be a charitable organization. Do you know how they make money ? Thanks - Siobhan Hansa 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Scientific Description of Eczema

About Eczema

Most often, eczema is an allergy reaction to certain substances that are 'foreign' to our bodies. These substances are called allergens, and they can range from food and pollen to drugs and dust.

Allergies are something we acquire throughout life, and some people are more susceptible than the others. One must have at least one contact with a substance to become sensitive, or allergic to it.

Liver is the main organ inside human body who's function is to process substances that are 'foreign' to our body and to make them "friendly".

Conventional treatment of allergies is most commonly directed to block the immune response, or in more severe cases, to suppress the entire immune function with steroids, both topical and systemic. While this approach can provide symptomatic relief, it does nothing to address the underlying cause of the problem. Patients often become dependant on their medication, they suffer from numerous side effects, and most importantly, they worsen their overall health by constantly suppressing the immune system.

The circulatory system of the liver is unlike that seen in any other organ. Of great importance is the fact that a majority of the liver's blood supply is venous blood! The pattern of blood flow in the liver can be summarized as follows:

Roughly 75% of the blood entering the liver is venous blood from the portal vein.

Importantly, all of the venous blood returning from the small intestine, stomach, pancreas and spleen converges into the portal vein.

One consequence of this is that the liver gets "first pickings" of everything absorbed in the small intestine, which, as we will see, is where virtually all nutrients are absorbed.

So, it is liver's job to process all the foods that your intestines have been absorbing.

The remaining 25% of the blood supply to the liver is arterial blood from the hepatic artery.

If you've developed allergies, you most likely have liver and gall bladder malfunction due to numerous intrahepatic stones and/or gallstones.

Most allergies are caused by primary liver stones (intrahepatic stones).

Leaky gut syndrome is another problem. Liver stones are also one of the many important cofactors.

Poor liver and gallbladder function may be an important cofactor in candidiasis- candida overgrowth - infection.

Candida overgrowth - infection is the main cofactor in Leaky gut.

So, there is a direct link between intrahepatic stones, leaky gut, candida and allergies.

Intrahepatic stones are usually the first to start forming, or in the same time as gallstones are forming.

Intrahepatic stones block liver function and intestinal function. Intrahepatic stones cause allergies and celiac disease.

Intrahepatic stones may be sucked into gallbladder, while naturally passing by, through main bile duct (after a fatty meal), and may be joining stones that are already there - genuine gallstones, or may be the first stones to be inside gallbladder.

There is direct casual link between intrahepatic stones and leaky gut.

Most of the allergies come as a result of the decreased integrity of the mucous membranes that become 'leaky' to the numerous foreign substances, along with the repeated exposure to these substances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.127.85.109 (talk) 16:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

  • Reference? Buzybeez 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cellulitis

I've been a sufferer of eczema for years and in course have had cellulitis a number of times. I think the two conditions are related, but could someone update it with reference? Bizzmag 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not related in a way that the article needs mention by very much, and this is already included in the article, see Eczema#Antibiotics section, to probably the appropriate extent. Any break in the skin, or condition that is possibly itchy and leading to scratching (eg lichen planus, ringworm, molluscum contagiosum, chicken pox) may result in 2nd bacterial infection, either superficially as impetigo or into deeper levels as cellulitis. But someone with mild eczema who moisturises well, does not scratch (or uses antihistamines to prevent this) and had treatment promptly applied to bring a flare-up to an end, is unlikely ever to have cellulitis - the two conditions are not obligatorily related. But sure, people unfortunate to have severe eczema which is hard to treat may get 2nd infection on occasions. David Ruben Talk 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Treatment section - "Eczema and skin cleansers" and "Moisturizers"

I came across this page today, and am pretty shocked by the treatment section. "direct application of waterproof tape with or without an emollient or prescription ointment can improve moisture levels and skin integrity which allows the skin to heal." Um, I wonder if they teach that at medical school?

Is it ethical for this page to give medical treatment advice like this? By people who are not medical practitioners? And with 0 credible sources? No, www.leechesforeczema.com doesn't count..

It seems like a touchy subject so I want to see what people think about it. It would be nice if someone really knowledgeable could clean up this section and post solid sources. Or if not, take out this section altogether. I'm specifically referring to the "Eczema and skin cleansers" and "Moisturizers" section. --JRavn talk 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been attempting to clean up the article as far as grammer is concerned, to make it easier to read. hope it helps. Buzybeez 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


"However, there is currently no scientific evidence for the claim that sulfur treatment relieves eczema" - What? Try telling that to my MD here in Holland. Been prescribed a sulphur/vaseline-based ointment for years, and it's one of the better treatment solutions, at least for me. So there's 'empiric evidence' at the very least. It does work, even if you have to keep up applying it a few times a week (preferably after taking a bath - seems to improve the effectiveness). Relieves the itching rather fast, too.

A site for possible inclusion in the External Links section of the wikipedia eczema page

Dear Sir/Madam. I am a dermatologist and have a website related to all the different aspects of dermatitis. In addition to the articles I write, I also publish the abstracts of all the new academic literature on dermatitis. Please consider adding it to your External Links. I think it might be useful for wikipedia readers in addition to my patients.

The website address is: Eczemaletters.com.

BTW eczema and dermatitis are synonyms. Dermatitis is however the better term, because it is more in line with other terms like hepatitis, nephritis, carditis, synovitis etc. "Itis" = inflammation.

Best regards, Dr. Jeanne Louw Jeannelouw 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannelouw (talk • contribs) 09:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated research section(s)

Anyone else notice that the research section appears twice, with slightly different wording and format? Hopefully someone familiar with this article can clean it up. CarbonX (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

References for Treatment Section?

Reading the "Treatment" section, I am disappointed and concerned that there seem to be few references for the listed treatments, especially for the non-pharmecutical sections. I think we need to be exceedingly cautious in what we list as potential treatment, especially if there is an implication that the treatments work. There are a host of folk remedies running around, many of which have little support for their effectiveness outside of "my cousin's friend's aunt's sister has eczema, and she claims this works", or other such personal testimonials. I'm not trying to imply that any of the treatments listed don't work, I just think Wikipedia should be more explicit about who we're trusting as an expert to say that these treatments are effective. (Recognizing that "this guy on the internet" doesn't really count.) -- 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Treatment

Treatment mess

The treatment section is a mess. Few examples - It talks about pseudoceramides without talking about ceramides - Liver cod treatment is under herbal treatment - wearing clothing avoiding scratching is under alternative therapy - the order of section seems random

I would suggest a brief introduction what is possible, then something like this

  1. medication - steroids/immunosupressants, immunomodulators, antibiotics
  2. light therapy
  3. moisturizing
  4. self-care
    1. things to do
    2. things to avoid
  5. alternative treatment

And of course, references are needed....

Does anybody have a better suggestion? --Jirka6 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did some reorganization. There are still many things missing in the treatment section (tar coal and other stuff for Seborrhoeic dermatitis), avoiding scratching etc.--Jirka6 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Things to add

The article should mention more things:--Jirka6 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • scratching or irritation by clothing makes it worse
  • temperature and/or humidity changes make eczema worse for many people
  • for some reason, certain sources advise for light-colored clothing (e.g the Vickery and Fries 2004 above)
  • Apart for pseudo-ceramides, normal ceramides should be mentioned as well

Deleted weird section

In a sec, I will delete the "Keeping Moisturized Skin Moisturized" section (moving it here, see below). It is (a) duplicating information providing in the previous section, (b) written very colloquialy, (c) does not mention any sources (not that the rest of the article does).

Keeping Moisturized Skin Moisturized
The second best method to clear up eczema, after moisturizing your skin, is to keep it moist. The human body creates a natural oil that covers the skin. This oil is what causes you to both leave fingerprints or develop pimples. Realize though that this oil holds the water in your skin and is crucial for people with eczema. If you have eczema on your hands, then you may want to avoid washing your hands or even rinsing them with water. Yes water does moisturize your hands, however it washes away the layer of oil that keeps the water in your hands. With this oil layer gone, your skin can easily lose water to the air around it and become dry. Applying moisturizer whenever you wash your hands is a very good idea. If you plan on going outside during the day, you should realize that the sun will evaporate the water contained in your skin. The best way to keep your skin moisturized in the sun, is to keep it out of sunlight. Depending on where the eczema is on the body, it may be a wise choice to wear long sleeves or a pair of pants or a hat. If the eczema is on your hands though, this may be difficult. The best method would be to pick up a cool looking pair of leather workout gloves or driving gloves. This will keep the sun off of your hands and keep your hands moist because it's covering them up as well. Wear the gloves virtually whenever you're outside, when you're walking your dog, going for a bike ride, jogging, and especially while driving a vehicle. You'll get a lot of looks and people asking "What's with the gloves?", but it beats having eczema.

--Jirka6 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Why "alternative"?

Are some of the things mentioned as alternative really so alternative? I think that it is generally accepted that oatmeal helps (in US, various products containing oatmeal are produced by serious companies (Johnson&Johnson) and, more importantly, have the standard FDA label that is required for drugs. Similarly shea butter is a common emollient. What is alternative about that? I would think that the Alternative section should contain info about homeopathy, accupuncture and other non-standard methods, not about something that is commonly used, approved but not expensive enough to be interesting for Pfizer.--Jirka6 (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsorced alternative medicine

When I cleaned the alternative medicine section, removing all things without a comment and/or source, I forgot to put it on the talk page. So here it goes. Feel free to add it to the main article with some comment and references --Jirka6 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And new unsourced things will surely keep popping out:--Jirka6 (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moisterizing and super-fatted ointments side effect/ esczema source (!)

I just want to give a warning the super-fatted ointments regarding the eczema condition.

I had a quite light eczema until I was 18 or 20, with symptoms only inside knees and elbows, and only during summer.

I was recommended by a doctor, as I suppose most of people, to use a super-fatted ointment.

I did, and the result is very bad: - I scratched my skin during night, in a near-sleeping (near-unconscious) state, - The lesions spread (!) to my face and my neck.

Now, those new lesions have never cured, though the ones at elbows and knees are light or inexistent mosts of the time.

I did try to moisturize lately (I'm 32 now), with a super-fatted ointment, with the same result (confirming my thinking): itchy skin (unbearable grease sensation) and unconscious scratching.

I therefore recommend to be careful and use lighter fatted ointments or frequent emollients.

Fgiral (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Zinc Oxide and Selenium

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309069971&page=135 In some areas, zinc oxide is fed at >1000 mg zinc/kg DM[Dry Matter] in an effort to control facial eczema. However because of poor solubility of zinc oxide it appears that in most cases this does not induce copper insufficiency (Lee et al, 1991).

Trace element status in eczema and psoriasis (Selenium) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119478134/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

"Concentrations of zinc, copper and selenium were determined in plasma and leucocytes from 23 patients with psoriasis and 24 with eczema." ... "Concentrations of selenium in whole blood, plasma and leucocytes were significantly reduced in both groups. This finding may be of importance in relation to the effect of free radicals on skin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.137.230 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eczema and Asthma

Hi All I am not an expert in medicine or any associated discipline. I read in The Economist(article name:Breathe Easy) about reasearch done by Washington University. The researchers found that eczema induced TSLP(Thymic Stromal Lympho-protein), a signalling molecule secreted by damaged skin cells, when it arrives at the lungs, sensitizes them so that they react to allergens that would not have previously bothered them. The above-mentioned research led by Shadmehr Demehri, tested this finding in a series of experiments on mice. First, using genetic engineering, they created mice prone to similar skin defects found in eczema (i.e susceptible to eczema). Then, they deleted the gene for the receptor molecule which picks up TSLP in the lungs. These mice did not develop asthma. Finally, they engineered mice to produce high levels of TSLP in their skin in the absence of other skin problems. These mice also developed asthma. I am quoting some phrases from the article as it is. Any one who is an expert on the topic of eczema- can you extend the discussion and consider adding a new section to the article? Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnadevaraya (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

UV light

"Ultraviolet light carries its own risks, particularly potential skin cancer from exposure, although there is no conclusive evidence of this"

Really? So all the stuff on sunblock is rubbish?

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:kDDxvUdKIn8J:www.ehealthmd.com/library/skincancer/SC_causes.html+uv+causes+skin+cancer&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Does this count as a source? I had to use the cache since I'm not an Md!

or maybe: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=4316

I'd say cancer research was a fairly good source.

If you agree can you change it please. I would but I'm not entirely sure what counts as a source. 86.131.100.165 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence is awkward

"Eczema is a disease in a form of dermatitis". What does that mean? Not being a specialist, I dare not correct it, but someone please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.45.8 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


added a helpful sentence

I added "Eczema may be confused with urticaria. " at the top. Searching around for information on itching skin leads you here first, and I wish this simple distinction had been pointed out from the very beginning. Vazor (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Collection of unsorced statements moved from the main article

I suggest to put any new unsourced statements below. Once reliable sources are found, they can be moved back:

The chlorine content of the water is also a major factor. High chlorine content is an aggravator to exzema. Some municipal water systems have extremely high percentages of chlorine, such as in the city Quetzaltenango (Xela) in Guatemala.

Dry-air environments aggravate exzema. High altitudes and cold weather environments tend to have drier air.

Dusty environments particularly aggravate exzema, so it is important to clean off computer keyboards and tables, as well as avoid dusty environments as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka6 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

It is proposed that Eczema be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see this template was removed. I have added it again as there is consensus for this trial to go ahead. Please continue to discuss this at WT:ITE. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I do not believe you have a functional consensus that it should be added to this article. Thparkth (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I have removed the template again - I have significant objections to this trial, which I raised on the WT:ITE talk page, and which have not been addressed in any way other than to acknowledge their validity. I am sure that regardless of the outcome of the trial, there will not be wide acceptance of adding this kind of template to an article, and I feel that this should have been addressed before the trial was begun - at the moment, it is a pointless exercise.
As far as this article goes, there has been absolutely no attempt to gain a consensus on this talk page. I will not remove the template if it is added again. Please consider whether "opposition from other article editors led to the removal of the template" is a possible valid outcome of the trial itself.
Thparkth (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Just leave it for a bit. We seriously need more edits to improve Wikipedia. We need suggestions to achieve this. We will only figure out what works by trying stuff.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Aqueous cream contains sodium laurylsulphate

The single irritant listed as causing contact dermatitis is sodium laurylsulphate. The article mentions aqueous cream as an alternative to soap and detergents. Looking at the article for aqueous cream, I see that it's emulsifier is sodium laurylsulphate. Can someone please address this contradiction? Coder0xff2 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Any objections to archiving discussions that have not been active since 2005 and 2006? Buzybeez 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. In particular it would be good to not have to wade through all the requests for inclusion of external links and lengthy debates when looking for active or dormant issues. Pouletic (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Need for Reviews" (pruning primary sources)

I was suprised to find that a paragraph i refined about a study described in a verifiable primary source was summarily removed. I don't know when the section was added but it had been there a while before i modified it. Given the lack of meaningful progress in medical 'consensus' (secondary or tertiary) about the treatment of eczema, is it really desirable to prune out all short descriptions of potentially helpful findings in new areas from reputable primary sources? I reread the wp guidelines and it seems to support such short descriptions as an appropriate approach.

In any case, here's the deleted paragraph about the study, which i found useful:

A small study of the effects of dietary intake of DHA, an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), on eczema found that increasing the dietary intake of DHA (and consequently reducing the omega-6/omega-3 ratio) reduced symptoms in patients, as evaluated with SCORAD.[2]

Pouletic (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We try to use recent secondary sources per WP:MEDRS and there are lots of them for this condition. If you need help with access I am sure that I could help you with this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidiasis

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. This [14] and [15] are not a high quality source. Thanks

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is full of references to the individual doctors articles. Even if you do not like one of the four references, it is no reason to remove the rest. Removing others people edits without a reason is a form of vandalism, read WP:VAN. I put the edit back and added more references to PubMed. Innab (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are you keep reverting my edits claiming that PubMed is not reliable? It said on Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine): "PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical sources". I will take it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests if you keep removing well-sourced information. Innab (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Peer reviewed is not the same as review article please read the difference. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Innab, you need to read WP:MEDRS more closely, specifically the part discussing the importance of secondary sources, how to identify them, and the need to use recent sources. Yobol (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two new reviews

  • 22041966
  • 22049348

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

  • McAleer, MA (2012 Jul 23). "Management of difficult and severe eczema in childhood". BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 345: e4770. PMID 22826585. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Atopic Dermatitis be merged into Eczema. Depending on the source, atopic dermatitis and eczema are either different names for the same condition, or one is a form of the other. Both articles are long and extensively sourced, so I realize that merging them would be a big job, but each seems to have some information not found in the other. ShawnVW (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I think all the articles on eczema and dermatitis need a bit of a sort out as eczema and dermatitis are being used interchangeably in most of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris2618 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I SUPPORT the merger

  • Disagree I disagree, they arent the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.169.184 (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree I disagree. The words dermatitis and eczema are the same, but atopic dermatitis is a medically recognized condition on its own, whereas eczema refers to a broader, "layman's" term which can be symptome of many conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.160.99 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree I disagree. There was an article referenced to support the idea that they are the same (annals.org id 1033151, Bershad 2011). That article itself says (in its second sentence) that they are not the same.
  • Comment Ref states "Eczema and atopic dermatitis (AD) are often used synonymously. The distinction is that eczema can mean inflamed skin from any cause, whereas AD is the relapsing–remitting pruritic rash that occurs at typical sites, mainly the face and skin creases, and is associated with other type I allergic disorders, such as asthma, food allergies, and allergic rhinitis." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Atopic Dermatitis is horribly sourced and is in need of an extensive rewrite. It has also according to its talk page, been in that state for at least the last 2 years. Might as well just put the few useful parts here and delete the rest. Triougd (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hemp

We have mentioned hemp twice in the article based on a poor quality primary source [16]. We should be using secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at this literature in the past, & just had a quick check. Will update myself better and add them. Hildabast (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
James, that study is included in the systematic review I'll be adding: the review concluded it showed no benefit on critical outcomes, had a variety of methodological problems, and "the first author had financial interest in the production of hempseed oil." Hildabast (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Excellent that would be great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've finished that whole section - cleaned up diet while at it. It was odd, what was under alternative medicine there. So I moved things like clothes out of there while I was at it. Hildabast (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Capsaicin

I think that mechanism as a counterirritant is subject to discussion and controversy. Capsaicin is supposed to cause release of substance P from nerve terminals, and over a longer period of time is supposed to deplete substance P from nerve terminals. Pollira (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Eczema not equal to dermatitis

Eczema and dermatitis are NOT synonymous! Dermatitis is a generic term for any inflammation of the skin. (That is the definition of the word!) Eczema is a somewhat more specific term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Dermatitis / eczema

The ICD10 uses the terms interchangeably. Thus so should we and I have merged.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Jmh649 Should this article be renamed to eczema? I saw that you changed atopic dermatitis to atopic eczema. It looks like "dermitis" is the word used in other languages on Wikidata. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
They are used interchangeably. No strong feeling which term it should be at. Happy to hear arguments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If we are following that ICD section, then dermatitis is used more frequently, including all the subheadings, although eczema is still used a bit. My personal preference would be dermatitis since the derivation of the word is closer to many other medical terms... Lesion (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

From the "for what it's worth" department, here is the rate of use for related search words on Google. I'd play to the masses and use eczema.
Avg. monthly searches

  • shingles 550,000
  • eczema 301,000
  • ringworm 301,000
  • impetigo 165,000
  • dermatologist 135,000
  • hives 135,000
  • rosacea 110,000
  • dermatitis 90,500

Ian Furst (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Side note Doc James, has the warning been lifted on Protopic? It worked great on erosive LP and BMMP but we stopped when the warning came out. Ian Furst (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure were it is at. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We should not use the number of google hits to determine the naming of medical articles. Per the MEDMOS it is the most common name being used in recent, reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Lesion (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
In this case both, could qualify as the "scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" and both are recognized by the WHO. Is there a rule against taking the search frequency into consideration? It seems like a good idea in this case. Ian Furst (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Imo, a pubmed search of review papers from the last 5 years would more closely highlight what we should do than a google search... Lesion (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It was: dermatitis -1592, eczema -347. Many conditions have "dermatitis" in their title, so this is probably a pretty crude measure. Might be easier to just say "follow a major source like ICD or MeSH". Lesion (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay will support dermatitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong edit about Greek meaning

User Omnipaedista wrote that Greek -ῖτις means "disease." This is certainly not true. The Greek word for disease is νόσος. The suffix -ῖτις in itself does not mean disease.--HD86 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay so what do you propose to fix it for us non greek speakers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just revert it to the way it was before.--HD86 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Eczema not equal to dermatitis

The previous editor was correct on this point. Eczema refers to skin inflammation of immune origin caused by substances originating within the body (e.g. some fungi). Whereas Dermatitis refers both to a similar condition caused by reactions to exogenous substances (such as perfumes). The two while indeed very similar often occur in different locations and under different circumstances. I have witnessed two Consultant skin specialists discussing which disease applied to a patient hence expert opinion clearly disagrees with this article.

Further the ICD-9/10 codes are no indication since they do often group multiple related diseases under a common marker. E.g. there are nine forms of diabetes, yet two ICD classifications. 91.84.75.120 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

ICD 10 says "In this block the terms dermatitis and eczema are used synonymously and interchangeably." [18]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Topical Steroid Addiction?

Is it really appropriate to have an entire paragraph about "topical steroid addiction"? I think that subject is, to put in mildly, controversial and most certainly is not yet accepted in mainstream dermatology. It's a fringe theory that has caused those who withdrew use months (or even years) of agony, with very mixed results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwinters81 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed information about bathing.

Bathing once or more a day is recommended.[3] It is a misconception that bathing dries the skin in people with eczema.[4]

I've removed the above text because the first sentence contradicts my doctor's advice and even some of the published material that cites it so even though I can't access the source, I know it doesn't say that. I've removed the second sentence because it also contradicts my doctor's advice and the source no longer exists to explain the reasoning. Sbluen (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sbluen Your doctor would do well to read Wikipedia :-) Ref says "Bathing is usually recommended once a day and emollients once to twice a day, or even more often, depending on the clinical setting" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Cure For All Diseases" by Hulda Clark, PH.D., N.D.Reprint 2006
  2. ^ Fleming Nic (March 27, 2008). "Omega-3 can help eczema". London: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-04-28., citing Koch C, Dölle S, Metzger M; et al. (2008). "Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation in atopic eczema: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial". The British Journal of Dermatology. 158 (4): 786–92. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.08430.x. PMID 18241260. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mc2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Daily Skin Care Essential to Control Atopic Dermatitis article at American Academy of Dermatology's EczemaNet website". Retrieved 2009-03-24.

Were does the ref say only indicated for a short period of time?

"although topical steroids have side effects and are only indicated for a short period of time" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the ref [19] which says "Corticosteroids of mild to moderate potency are used for maintenance treatment in mild to moderate eczema." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This text "Treatment with steroids tends to be exclusively short-term, as prolonged use can produce side effects." This ref is not pubmed indexed Nnoruka, Edith; Daramola, Olaniyi; Ike, Samuel (2007). "Misuse and abuse of topical steroids: implications". Expert Review of Dermatology. 2 (1): 31–40. doi:10.1586/17469872.2.1.31. Retrieved 2014-12-18. And this one Sanjay, Rathi; D'Souza, Paschal (2012). "Rational and ethical use of topical corticosteroids based on safety and efficacy". Indian Journal of Dermatology. 57 (4): 251–259. doi:10.4103/0019-5154.97655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) has an impact factor of zero. We need better reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted with a better reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking "side effects" to "Red burning skin" in the lead

This is an inappropriate link IMO. There are side effects other than red burning skin so it is undue weight. Also red burning skin is rare and not associated with normal use of topical steroids per [20].

It is not why the use of topical steroids is recommended to be limited to two weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

agree w/ DocJames,(per[21])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. (As in Doc James's comment) —PermStrump(talk) 16:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Experimental, nearing FDA approval treatments

I added the following to the treatments section and it was reverted by a user who believes these "are not treatments". I believe it is clear they are, as they have been developed to treat atopic dermatitis and already used in a significant number of trials. The fundamental definition of a treatment. Their current status almost at the completion of but not quite yet approved in the FDA process doesn't make them not a valid treatment. However, I don't wish to be in an edit war. I included a reference and many others are available showing they are notable I believe. I have no doubt anyone following WP:AGF can find coverage of both these treatments in medical/scientific literature. Perhaps they should be in a different section somehow but I believe these treatments and some others meet the standards of notability the definition of the word treatment concerning dermatitis and any other reasonable standard I can think of for inclusion at least as a brief mention in this article. I submit it for anyone here to discuss and would encourage someone other than myself to read this information so it isn't based solely on my opinion. Perhaps the section should be called, experimental and emerging treatments or something similar.

New treatments

Two new treatments have been in Phase III trials with potential FDA approval dates in 2017. One is dupilumab a monoclonal antibody which binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. The other is crisaborole which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, including primarily PDE4B which causes inflamation.[1]

I was returning to this page to add the following additional note, also referenced in the article above but again for which I'm sure other references can be found.

Lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, and nemolizumab are some other experimental treatments in earlier stage trials.

References

  1. ^ Pierson , Randsell (2016-05-17). "Pfizer's Anacor deal showcases new wave of eczema therapies". Reuters. Retrieved 2016-10-21.

Phil (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A "treatment" is something that is used by doctors to treat people. clinical research to learn if something is safe and effective is not clinical treatment. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Clinical trials as noted there "including new treatments" involve doctors treating people with a condition as has been happening here to validate its efficacy and safety. It is clear we disagree on this point and I'm soliciting others opinions and views. I feel this is clearly notable information and while you may disagree with my wording, rather than improving the wording, you removed the information entirely. In the interest of assuming good faith, I invite you to restore the information if your only concern is labeling it as a treatment, under what you feel is an appropriate heading, while awaiting consensus. I feel it is clearly defensible as notable and pertinent to those interested in dermatitis. Phil (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The other issue is that you put this in the medical section and sourced it to popular media. See WP:MEDRS. The content isn't useable anywhere in the article as you posed it. We sometimes have "research" sections but they too should be sourced to literature reviews from the biomedical literature, not news. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
As more than half of Phase III trials fail, it is not appropriate to write into the article specifics about "new treatments" while there is still ongoing research. This seems more a category of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:CRYSTAL. Agree with Jytdog: the article doesn't have a "Research" section, so it may be okay to indicate target mechanisms being investigated in patients by citing WP:MEDRS-quality sources as reviews on the merits of the possible mechanisms. Fyi, most of the 10 monoclonal antibody studies registered with NIH and 5 for crisaborole are only at Phase I or II, i.e., a long way from being called "therapy". --Zefr (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Renaming it/moving it to something more appropriate is fine with me. And fixing it up with better sources, I'm sure you have more experience finding scientific/medical sources, I don't have much access to journals and such. Again those are great reasons to improve it, not remove it. Phil (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Asking other people to find acceptable refs for content you want added is a hallmark of what we call tendentious editing. There are a slew of problems with making the research section into a "pipeline", the biggest ones being the work to avoid WP:NOTNEWS and keeping it up to date (there are loads of examples where people tried to do that; they become uselessly outdated after a year or two and also become spam magnets). I have no interest in establishing such a section. I am happy to add treatments when they become actual treatments. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sugar and traditional medicine

WP:BRD and WP:NOTHOWTO - Removed from the article for discussion and awaiting source(s) being assessed by Autacoid. --Zefr (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sugar: Excessive intake of sugary, cold, spicy, pickled, oily, or high-protein food or drinks disrupts the digestive system and increases the severity of eczema, especially during summer. Certain seafood (ex. crabs or shrimps), internal organs (ex. beef kidney), or dietary supplements (ex. ginseng) may cause eczema. And for patients with diabetic or pre-diabetic eczema, continuously elevated level of blood sugar from sugary foods restricts eczema sores or wounds from healing. Sucralose and sugar alcohols from "sugar-free" foods may still raise blood sugar level and cause eczema to flare.
  • Traditional medicine: In traditional asian medicine, Chinese foxnut (芡實/肇實/Qian Shi) (not to be confused with Indian Makhana) along with Job's tears (薏米/薏仁) (not to be confused with pearl barley), used either separately or better combined, is a very effective treatment for eczema. They can be prepared with lotus seed (蓮子) and Adzuki bean (紅豆) (asian red bean) to increase the efficacy and flavor. All four ingredients can be easily purchased in a typical asian grocery store. The regimen should be used as a replacement of the patient's usual staple foods such as wheat, rice, potato, or corn during the course of eczema.

Pronunciation

How is eczema pronounced? -- 195.242.190.233 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It always seems to be /'eksma/. If there's no disgreement, that could be included here. 219.78.212.29 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

According to my OED, Americans say igZEEma. Here in New Zealand, I have heard plenty both ways, and say it like the way posted above. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing Link to Turkish Language

The "Dermatitis" page has a Turkish article named "Egzama" on Turkish Wikipedia. However, in the language list on the left side of the "Dermatitis" page on the English Wikipedia, there is no Turkish language redirection. I don't know how I can fix this. I ask for your attention.

English "Dermatitis" item. Turkish "Egzama" substance. Both are the same substances in different languages... kad (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dermatitis/Archive_1&oldid=1136337230"