Talk:Vestibular schwannoma

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

note

    • MRI**?

I am having logical trouble seeing how magnetic fields and radiowaves cause schwannoma. Please cite some papers to that point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjm2052 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Connected to, Vestibular Schwannoma: Tara Subkoff should not be cited here. Why did her name get posted?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard J Barker (talk • contribs) 12:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Adding some things to the first paragraph to lengthen and refine the description. Bdelisle 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think some information is wrong

The Clinical Manifestations part talks about CN V involvement leading to loss of taste. CN VII carries taste sensation, not CN V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.98.237 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Clarification

Under the section on Conservative Treatment, there is a sentence that states,"Since the growth rate of an acoustic neuroma rarely accelerates, annual observation is essential." Does this mean that:
a) because the incidence of accelerated growth rate is so low, no more than a yearly check up is needed,
or,
b) although rare, in some instances the growth rate will accelerate, requiring yearly monitoring?
I know it seems trivial, but as someone who arrived here while attempting to educate myself on a condition I may have, it's a distinction that interests me a great deal at the moment.
Thanks in advance. --69.151.248.177 11:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer

It isn't a misnomer as far as it being a Schwannoma. Neur- (at least originally) referred to nerves, not neurons. In fact, the word neuroma is older than the word neuron. I believe the modern neuroma refers to both tumors of neuronal origin and glial origin. Mauvila 23:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just wanted to reiterate this point. If you consult a dictionary, you will find it is NOT a "double misnomer". Neur-, neuric, and everything refers to "nerves"...the word originally meant tendon (e.g. aponeurosis), and was also applied to nerves because of their similar appearance. They didn't have microscopes, so they didn't even know the existence of "neurons" at that time. Neuron is a newer word used to describe the cells in a nerve, and also those in the CNS. To repeat, neur- (neuric) refers to nerve, neuronal refers to neurons. And Schwann cells are constituents of nerves, so it is in no way a misnomer as far as the "neuroma" part goes. Mauvila 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


that's why the mayo clinic, n.i.h., the acoustic neuroma association of canada, medline et al call it an acoustic neuroma, you little pedant! "to repeat" (not too arrogant, are we?) when something is primarily known by a name which may, technically, be a misnomer, you ought to leave things be. in addition to which you ought also to include the rest of the terms by which it is known, such as acoustic neurinoma, acoustic neurilemmoma etc. etc.76.69.149.208 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see! we can work together lol..

i should give you a award for your editing wolf peace -roy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royissick (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that's me. There's always barnstars. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are stupid

"Yeah, we're gonna link "United States" 'cause you might not know what that is, but "8Th Cranial Nerve", "Schwann Cells" and even "peripheral nervous system" need no introduction.

I swear, THIS is why Wikipedia is a great idea but, like Java and the Economic Stimulus Fund it DOESN"T effing work!

Retards. 96.225.212.89 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

"The correct medical term is vestibular schwannoma" if this is true, why isn't the main title vestibular schwannoma? Murdochious (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I've now moved it. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • see comments above. there is something rather off-putting - outright repellent - in the way in which rigid little personalities seize upon the "correct" title and the "correct" way to say or do something, especially as regards language. just because you are editing a page on a relatively obscure topic does not mean you are god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.149.208 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your stimulating (albeit anonymous) comments. It's not pedantry - just because a term is widely (mis)used, does not at all mean that we "ought to leave things be". Art Dublin's eloquent (and Medline-indexed!) article "Acoustic Neuroma or Vestibular Schwannoma?" summarises some of the reasons that I think justify having this article under the title "Vestibular Schwannoma". The National Institutes of Health recommended the name change almost 20 years ago, and despite slow progress (the AN:VS split in PubMed was 74:26 from 2000-2005; 67:33 from 2005-April 2009; and 57:43 over last 12 months) "vestibular schwannoma" will almost certainly become the dominant term within the next 18 months. If you disagree with the naming, feel free to provide some convincing justification for switching it back. Acoustic neuroma redirects here, and the lead paragraph makes it perfectly clear that there are two commonly-used names, so there's no need for you to lose your temper or insult people. - Gobeirne (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mc site of origin of acoustic neuroma??

inferior vestibular or superior vestibular nerve??please specify in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashjai444 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donated text

This article contains text donated by the ANA under a CC BY SA license by User:ANAssociation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most text copy/pasted from Acoustic Neuroma Association booklets

Most of the text, and nearly all of the refs are from a single source (albet several individual pamphlets) of the Acoustic Neuroma Assoc. The text may say things like "a study says..." without a citation. Maybe the study didn't say that, maybe the editor of the booklet or of wikipedia misinterpreted. Maybe the study itself was invalid. The point is, in a medical article, the ANA isn't a strong source, either primary or secondary. Nearly every individual factoid still needs a citation from a reliable (usually secondary or review) source. It may be ok to use the borrowed text to save composition effort (see section above), but I just don't think we can *cite* a derivative source like ANA in a medical article.

To clarify the sources, I think we ought to combine the refs to a single pamphlet into a single ref, similar to what we'd do when citing an academic paper. The pamphlets aren't that long, maybe 15 pages at most. We lose a small bit of info, like the exact page number of the extracted text, but we normally don't have that info anyway, we cite a page number range in a journal or book. Even so, all the pamphlets combined are essentially a single source. An even better way to manage this would be to list the pamphlets in a separate 'Cited texts' section, with the stipulation that we borrowed text from them, then cite the borrowed text properly, with the actual studies.Sbalfour (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide in which edit the copy and paste was added and from which pamphlet? Will than follow up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal entry under Notable People removed

Under the Notable People section, the following entry has been removed:

"Crista Leigh: Digital strategist. Marketing professor. Mommy. Former rock goddess. Current self-proclaimed expert on EVERYTHING."

This section is not meant as a personal forum for any and all VS patients, and the entry reads like a social media obituary by a friend or family, making it inappropriate for inclusion under Notable People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkurzweil (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Concretely" and "Scientifically" are two separate things

Hello. It looks like someone C&P something from http://www.cyberknifeoc.com/conditions/acoustic-neuroma/faqs/ but changed one word which changes the meaning. That link says: "no environmental factor (like diet or cell phone use) has been concretely proven as a cause or risk factor. That said, the American Nurses Association (ANA) does recommend that frequent cell phone users use a hands-free device to keep the cell phone farther from the head." This article re-states: "To date, no environmental factor (such as cell phones or diet) has been scientifically proven to cause these tumors. The Acoustic Neuroma Association (ANA) does recommend that frequent cellular phone users use a hands free device to enable separation of the device from the head". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.191.144 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2022 and 18 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Friasal (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Friasal (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Vestibular_schwannoma"