Talk:Neurapraxia

Neuropraxia

Is this the same as 'neuropraxia', because that's the term I've heard used for this condition. Could we get is added as an 'also known as' indication? 128.250.5.246 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sensory/motor involvement

If any experts on neurapraxia should happen to read this, I think it would be worthwhile to fully discuss the probability of sensory versus motor involvement, in this article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If any expert authors could read this page and rate its quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Danika paulo (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I'll run through the article pointing out things I believe could be improved, but here are a few initial points:

• Wikipedia articles should mainly be aimed at ordinary people, not at medical professionals, who have other ways of getting information. To get a fix on the target audience, imagine that you are an ordinary college freshman who has been playing pick-up football and went to the clinic after an injury that left your arm numb, and the doctor says "It's okay, it's only neurapraxia" -- you go to Wikipedia and look up this article to see what that means. Can you make sense of it? Probably not. We tried to make the article more accessible to ordinary people by linking more outside Wiki pages and by using common language instead of medical terms.

See if you can rephrase at least parts of this article so that that college freshman can read it with benefit.

• The article should explain how the word originated, which mainly means explaining what apraxia is.

• It would be better if the references were set up using "cite" templates. I'll do the first couple of them to give you an example of what this means. You can find documentation at Template:cite book and Template:cite journal.

More later. Generally speaking the article contains most of the information that it ought to, I believe, but it needs to be made more accessible. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

I think that you could elaborate in some of the sections just to give people a better understanding of the topic. For example, under “anatomy” you could add information about the importance of damage to the myelin/the purpose of the myelin sheath. You later mention blockage of conduction under “causes” so it might make sense to talk about myelin in terms of conductance earlier in the article. In “causes”, you mention reduction in action potential amplitude; you could include the significance of this/the importance of action potentials or some background information on action potentials. Under “diagnosis” you could link “Seddon’s Classifications,” I looked them up and there is a Wikipedia page about them. I am also not sure if the “conclusion” section is necessary. Overall, I thought the article was well written. I also though the treatment, and prevalence in collision sports was easy to understand. I would just suggest adding a little more information in some of the other sections. Randiew390 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you all are off to a great start. I really think the organization and subheadings of the article make the article clear, concise, and accessible to the general public. However, there are several more logistical issues that need to be fixed, primarily in regards to the formatting of the resources. First, I am unclear on what purpose the “Notes” serves. Are these resources you used? If so, then why is there a separate section for “References?” It appears to me that you used many more resources within the body of the article than that are properly cited in WP format, so here is some advice. I think you may have used the Diberri's template, as was recommended to us, but you never used the formatting of {{ }} with the word “reflist” inside of the brackets under the heading of references. Then, if you used the template I mentioned before, all of your sources should be listed under the references section automatically and each source will appear only once, rather than multiple times and you will be able to get rid of the redundancy of having both a notes and references section. Outside of this suggestion, I think you need to have more in text hyperlinks to other articles. You seem to have linked many other articles in the introduction, but then the following paragraphs have barely any links within them. Other than that, looks like a great start! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a good start, but just needs some cleaning up. Like the previous comment mentioned, you should definitely get rid of the Notes section and just make a reference section. It looks a lot better. And when you cite the same source multiple times, it shouldn't be cited as a different source each time. Thus, when you cite the same source, it should come up with the same number each time. An easy way to do this is when your referencing the source, give it a name, so it would be (closed carrot)ref name=whatever(open carrot), (can't put in the carrots without it actually coming up as a reference) and then the rest of the information, and then when you reference the same article, you can just put (closed carrot)ref name=whatever /(open carrot) and it will come up as the same number. There also seems like there should be at least one reference in the intro. The language of the page reads really good if this were a paper for a science class, but for a page for the general public, it is too technical. A lot of scientific terminology is used that may not be understood by the public and you should try to see if this can be simplified. Also, like mentioned above, there is not enough linking in the page. Any scientific term should probably be linked to the page. Without a solid background in science, most people do not know what much of this stuff means. Even something as simple as axon may be confusing to much of the general public. The confusion seems a little unnecessary. A better way to wrap up the text might be to just put a Ongoing and future research section with any research currently being done. Still a great start though AndyD147 (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This article seems very thorough and well organized. As always, I think an image would definitely help the article. One of the first things I noticed while reading through the article is that the term Wallerian degeneration seems a bit confusing. I would recommend explaining in layman's terms what it is and how it relates to neuropraxia. This could be done in parenthesis or with a separate sentence. This will make that section of the article more readable. I think the distinction between subjective and objective sensory symptoms in Mechanism of Injury section of the article would be interesting to delve into. I am not sure, however, if this would be relevant or if enough specific information would be available about that idea. The Prevalence in Collision Sports section was interesting and particularly appealing to me. There has been a great deal of controversy in the NFL recently concerning concussions and other medical issues. I'm not sure if there is any link between current issues and neurapraxia specifically, but I think it may be worth researching. At the very least, there may be some discussion on the topic more recent than 1986 that could be included to make the article even more modern. I am not sure if the conclusions section fits well into the framework of the article; this section could afford to be cut. The See Also section is really good, but I don't think you are supposed to include links to articles that are already linked within this article. Seddon's Classification is an example of this. Also, the reference section could use a bit of tidying up. All in all a very well done article!

Sean J. Dikdan (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting article and well done overall. I’ve simply a few comments as to how to improve it. Well, my first comment is in regards to the references and notes sections. I see that other people have commented on it, so basically just make sure you clean that up and use the template on our class discussion page. Secondly, if you could make more links within the article, that would definitely help. There are many in your intro paragraph, but very few after that. In regards to the introductory paragraph, it is rather long and dense. Maybe try to give a lighter summary there, saving more in depth details for the actual article body. The article mentioned that most of the time surgery is not needed to treat neurapraxia, however, did you read of any instances of where surgery is needed? That might be worth mentioning. Finally, is the conclusion. It was a bit awkward, I know on our grade sheet it says there should be a conclusion, but I think that was meant in the sense as to not leave the reader hanging. I think the first paragraph summary is good enough at the top, it doesn’t need to be repeated at the bottom. Nonetheless, these are minor details, you still have great information here! BrianJLike (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Very informative and thorough; this article addresses and describes numerous aspects of neurapraxia. Here are a few suggestions that might increase the depth of the article. For instance, in your "Treatment and recovery" section, you have a subsection for "Non-operative treatment." I think it would be enlightening for the reader if the article also includes a section on operative or surgical treatment of neurapraxia, just to augment what is already written. There are also some very minor typos, such as the "(l)" under "Mechanisms of Injury." Also, the sentence "In certain circumstances, diagnosing neurapraxia can be uncomfortable the presence of severe neuropathic pain." can be edited so that it makes more sense and flows with subsequent sentences. Finally, like the previous editors have suggested, the conclusion can be improved so that it becomes an integral part of the article. For example, the conclusion might address current research, as well as new horizons for various types of neuraplaxia such as facial neuraplaxia. Overall, great span of information, and good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.chi.han (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a very interesting topic and did a very thorough job explaining it. I noticed the reference issue, but it seems that other people have already addressed it. As far as the content is concerned I was very interested in the section regarding its prevalence in collision sports. As American football is extremely popular you may consider expanding this section. I think it would be great if you could find video footage of a player being treated on the field for neurapraxia or if you could list cases of prominent players who have suffered from the disorder. I realize that it may be difficult to find this information, but you might be able to find it documented on injury reserve lists or something. Doing this is obviously not necessary, but it would highlight your topics relevance in our culture and may help you get the Good Wikipage extra credit. Weitzm (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done getting detailed information for each category! I like how the introduction states all the different categories that will be discussed in the article as a whole. I could think of only a few ways that you might consider to improve your article. One is that you could explain why and how Seddon’s classifications of peripheral nerve damage specifically classify the injury – if possible. Also, if you could find more ways of treatment or other mechanisms of recovery, the additional info would be useful. Lastly, I liked the link between neurapraxia and sports which was very interesting. It would be also interesting if you could find a big case/news that was in some way a big deal in the media. Overall I liked how it is organized! If you find appropriate images that might fit your article, they might add up more taste to the article. Debraborah(talk) 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys really covered all your bases. I thought you had a very practical division of categories and subtopics. Under the Causes section, it was mentioned that exogenous pressure causes decreased blood flow and disfiguration of the nerve. It would seem useful to explain a little bit more in depth on how the lesion itself causes a complete action potential conductance block. Under the Symptoms category, it would be interesting to discuss the prevalence of sensory disturbances from injury versus motor neuron neurapraxia-whether one symptom arises more often than another. The section on Professional Sports is an excellent article that can connect the topic to the general audience. In light of the recent NFL controversy, there is a lot of information out there that can be used to enhance your WP page. These athletes are exposed to constant trauma and physical stress on a daily basis, so the question is whether repeated cases of neurapraxia in a patient can lead to long-term nerve damage; and if so, what are the treatment options available. Robinsao (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This was definitely a great Wikipedia article. You guys talked about many different aspects of Neurapraxia and it was very interesting to learn about. I found a few grammatical errors in the introduction including the second sentence which should read "This condition is typically caused by a blunt neural injury due to external..." In addition, another thing I found later on in the introduction was "Neurapraxia results in temporary change to the myelin sheath but leaves the nerve intact and is only a transient condition." You had the word "in" somewhere in the sentence that was inappropriately placed. In addition, I thought that it would be interesting to discuss specifics found in other collision sports aside from Football such as Boxing, UFC Fighting, Rugby, Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, etc. This would deepen this particular aspect of your paper and allow further understanding. As for the conclusion, I would say either add more information or delete it entirely because you did not provide much information. I feel like every section is extremely thorough except for the conclusion and I think it takes away from the overall appearance of the article. Overall great Wiki! mastroin (talk) 1:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.152.174 (talk)

First and foremost, thank you for all of your feedback! It is very much appreciated and we have taken all of your suggestions into account in our editing, crossing out your suggestions as we go. The references section has been reformatted, typos were corrected, pictures have been added, and embedded links to other pages have been added. The intro does not and should not include and specific references because the information it contains is not taken from any one source; instead, all sources were read and the introduction was written as a compilation of the general knowledge about the condition common between all of the sources. A definition of apraxia was added, to further explain the etymology of the term neurapraxia. In regards to expanding sections, given the small body of research and published information on this topic, it would be difficult to expand sections without making the article incomprehensible to a layperson reader. In regards to commenting on the myelin sheath, we believe that the necessary information about the myelin sheath that is specific to the condition of neurapraxia is already included and that all other information necessary to understand the role the myelin sheath serves can be read on the wiki page for myelin, which we linked to. In response to the comment about Wallerian degeneration, this topic is not very relevant to neurapraxia as it does not actually occur, so we felt that adding in extra information about Wallerian degeneration would take away from our subject and that for an explanation of what it is, readers can click the link. Also, to address the issue of too technical or scientific language, we have gone through each section and attempted to simplify the language into more common terms without compromising the essential descriptions of the condition. In terms of operative treatment, neurapraxia is not severe enough of a condition to require surgical correction; however, more severe nerve damage such as axonotmesis or neurotmesis may require such treatment. It has been clarified that neurapraxia is a transient condition that typically ameliorates itself naturally but it can also worsen if not treated. If this occurs, the condition would no longer be considered neurapraxia. Because neurapraxia is a transient condition, there are not many treatment options necessary since the ones already available, as described in the treatments section, are sufficient to treat the disease. We have updated the last section on sports to include a recent WWE wrestler, Adam Copeland. The NFL controversy on concussion is a good suggestion, but upon further research, we concluded that it does not have a connection to neurapraxia since concussions involve the CNS, not the PNS. In terms of research studies, there have been several case studies and clinical work on the condition of neurapraxia, but these studies could not be included in our Wikipedia article because they are primary sources. There is not a great deal of ongoing researched, as far as we know through our research, but because it is a transient condition that is not very serious, it would be logical that there is not much pressure to study this topic, and thus there are not as many research studies on neurapraxia as one would expect to find. Lastly, the conclusion section may seem a little unnecessary and repetitive, but it is a criterion for our project as outlined by Dr. Burdo, so we believe that our article will be strengthened by keeping the conclusion. Further edits still to come! Danika paulo (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project

Hi guys, nice job with the article. It's in much better shape than before. A few issues:

• As mentioned by someone in the peer review, the articles shouldn't have a Conclusions section in keeping with Wikipedia style. No points taken off for that since I meant to but didn't take out the line in the rubric about the conclusions section.
• You mention that the cartoon you have on the page of a compressed nerve is used with permission, but as the image page states you need to have a copyright tag associated with it saying as much. It will be deleted otherwise.
• Under Treatment and recovery: "The outcome of nerve repair is dependent on the degree of the nerve injury and the circumstances at the sight of injury. " Site, not sight.
• Some of your section titles have all of the words capitalized, others don't. In general only the first word should be capitalized.
• From the Current cases in professional wrestling: "WWE Superstar Adam Copeland was forced to retire from professional wrestling on April 11, 2011 due to symptoms of neurapraxia. If he wrestles again he could be paralyzed or even die. In 2003, Adam Copeland underwent a two level spinal fusion of the discs between his C5, C6 and C7 vertebrae. After being cleared to compete, he returned to the ring, resulting in stenosis of the spine, or a narrowing of the spinal column, above and below the fused discs. This narrowing resulted in less and less of the vital fluid needed to protect the spinal cord." It isn't clear how this is related to neurapraxia since it's a PNS disorder and you're discussing his CNS injuries. Also, you have no references for this section although you state that he could be paralyzed or die. Who has made that prediction? In general those types of personal beliefs or statements should be left out. NeuroJoe (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Dr. B, thanks for the review - I have changed some things as you suggested: deleted the conclusion section, fixed the sight/site issue, fixed the capitalization. We are working on properly formatting the copyright license but are having some difficulty with the computer text - hopefully we can get it figured out very soon before the picture gets deleted. Lastly, Caroline sent out an email about the last section on Adam Copeland. As she stated, we actually did not write that section, but felt that the relevant information added would help support our article and was accurate information, so we did not want to delete it either, but it can certainly be modified further. Do you suggest that we find references to include in that paragraph or that we just take it out? Thanks for your suggestions and we will keep the edits coming! Danika paulo (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)