Talk:Pseudodementia

GA Nomination

• I have nominated this article at GAC for good article status. Anthøny 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pseudodementia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this article for now because I feel it does not cover the subject in enough depth. Some specific suggestions:

• Is this all there is for symptoms? How about a discrete section that describes symptoms found?
• How about a causes section? This could explain the role of organic and psychological causes, as well as going into depth about specific illnesses. If you don't want a separate section for pathophysiology, the blood flow discussion could go here.
• How about a classification section? PMID 6342420 says "there may be at least two categories of pseudodementia". This section could also explain differences from dementia.
• How about a section for Diagnosis? What tests are used? Apparently (from a brief pubmed search) there are scales in use. In addition to the briefly mentioned neuroimaging techniques, are there any neuropsychological tests? If diagnostic criteria exist, they should be discussed here. If not, the article should explain this. Differential diagnosis should be discussed (PMID 3277890 and PMID 7858369 may help).
• How about a prevention section?
• How about a treatment or management section? This could discuss drugs, psychotherapy, lifestyle changes, etc. Management could involve things like make changes to daily activities to accommodate disabilities, etc.
• ...patients with cognitive symptoms consistent with dementia who improved with treatment - what kind of treatment?
• How about a discussion of prognosis? Does the condition get better or deteriorate? What are the chances of recovery? Are there any complications?
• How about an epidemiology section? What's the average age of onset? If you could find them, statistics about incidence in different age groups would be great. Is there a gender difference? Is it more common in some regions of the world than others?
• How about a history and discovery section? The discussion of when the term was coined could go in here, as well as the controversy over the term, and evolution of treatments could also be discussed.
• For the para beginning "Doubts about the classification and features of the syndrome...", I recommend establishing when this debate took place or started; was it right from the outset, or later?
• The comprehensiveness issue is my main concern with the article, but I also find that there's little organization: one paragraph doesn't flow into the next in an intuitive way. For example, I think the second-to-last para discussing differences with dementia could go after the second paragraph that also discusses dementia or even be integrated into it.
• The article doesn't give the reader any idea of how widely accepted this is by the medical or psychological communities. Is this a widely acknowledged diagnosis? Some epidemiology info would help.

I understand that there's limited literature on the topic but there are some reviews out there, so there's enough to write a more comprehensive article. Definitely let me know if you have anything to discuss or if you'd like further input. delldot talk 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! I have completed a Peer Review Letter for my classmates in Cognitive Psychology at UVU. Here are my thoughts: The article had a great lead section which correlated wtih the rest of the content in the article. I do want to suggest some changes. First is to reorganize the different sections in the article to make more sense. Starting with the "History" section, then going into "Pseudodementia vs Dementia" then "Treatment" and finishing up with "Presentation and Differential". I think this would help with the overall flow of the article. I also think that a brief statement about treatment should be mentioned in the lead, since it is a topic covered in the article. Lastly, I do think it would be nice to have more content in the "Treatment" section like what treatments have been used in the past, what treatments are currently being used, how treatments affect patients, etc. This section did cover some of these questions, however, it was very brief. Out of all of these suggestions, I think the most important one would be the reorganization of the entire article. This article had a well-written lead section as well as different, applicable content areas. MarciWilson (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that pseudosenility be merged and redirected to pseudodementia. Best I can tell, pseudosenility is not a "current thing". The term returns only three hits in PubMed, TOTAL-- 1958, 1961 and 1973. That's it. Most of the sources listed in the article are for pseudodementia or reversible dementia,[1] and a lot of the actual article is about pseudodementia.[2] And the lead specifically says it is actually about pseudodementia (A more specific term "pseudodementia"). Pseudodementia returns 3,500 hits in Pubmed, including more than 500 reviews, and 60 reviews in the last five years. And, pseudosenility was pretty much a student editing article.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are essentially synonymous and should be merged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, same thing according to Campbell’s Psychiatric Dictionary, via WAID.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Møhtje (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that, as for the cause of 'pseudodementia', (irreversible?) damage to the brain due to chronic stress and exhaustion of the stress axis (among others caused by (chronic) psychotrauma), should be included? Merely mentioning depression as the sole cause of pseudodementia seems limited.

This also goes for the treatment of depression through cognitive therapy and interpersonal therapy.

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schan17, MayChawPharm, Estherchen99, Gbaskovich127 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mallai98, L. Alvarez113, DBarfield88, T. Banks UCSF Pharm.D. Candidate.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Assignment: Editing Plan

• Incorporate updated references.
• Review grammar.
• Add media.
• Scan for DEI improvements.
• Review any unaddressed GA requirements.
• Update the lead section to incorporate major sections.
• Expand on current treatments, including current and promising research
• Incorporate case studies.
• Expand on causes.
• Expand upon the summary table to incorporate additional relevant information.
• Expand on the presentation section (symptoms).
• Add more background information to history; make the history section after the lead section.
• Describe the different types of psuedodementia. Schan17 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Assignment: Peer reviews from group 7

Person A: L. Alvarez113 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, this group did a great job explaining Pseudodementia using lay language. They improved the articles overall flow and added relevant information to improve the quality of the article. The enhancements made by the group have clarified key points, improved the content with more detailed information, and overall increased the accuracy and readability of the article.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group incorporated updated references, reviewed grammar, and provided relavant background information.

Question 3 & 3a. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes, the article meets the guidelines and claims included are all verifiable with cited secondary sources. Mallai98 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The edits improved the flow of the article, clarified the difference between dementia and pseudodementia, and expanded the treatment section with current therapeutics. The changes to the tense and verbiage and the addition of credible sources strengthened the article too. Despite the limitations with the scarce availability of literature on your topic, your revisions have greatly enhanced the overall quality and readability of the article. Perhaps adding relevant findings from emerging studies will improve your article more down the line.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes! Your group incorporated updated references, reviewed grammar, expanded on current causes and treatments, and incorporated case studies.

Question 3 and 3a. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Sure! The article maintains a clear structure, uses credible sources, and provides a comprehensive overview of dementia and pseudodementia. It also reflects a neutral point of view and uses language that is objective and free from any subjective or biased statements. L. Alvarez113 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person C:T. Banks UCSF Pharm.D. Candidate (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The group did a phenomenal job defining pseudodementia, proposing treatment options for psedudodementia and distinguishing how pseudodementia differs from dementia. The article was able to flow very well through the groups utilization of lay language and a neutral tone. The changes the group made clarified content, expanded on content and overall elevated the article.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has incorporated new content and expanded on ideas while appropriately citing the sources where the information was obtained from. Additionally the group has utilized appropriate grammar and punctuation marks. Overall, this group has exceeded goals for improvement for this article.

Question 3 and 3c. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia formatting of style?

Yes I believe this article meets Wikipedia guidelines. The article utilized content from verifiable sources. The information utilized lay language and was expressed in a neutral tone. While the article maintains formatting style similar to Wikipedia it does lack a few subsections. The article doesn't include information regarding treatment options for pseudodementia in different countries. If it makes sense maybe the group can incorporate information from different countries to give a global view.