Talk:Osteopenia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 November 2019 and 21 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crennels. Peer reviewers: Jammars.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

about 8 million women had been found to have osteopenia

Meaningless nonsense. Is it worldwide? In one particular country? And without a citation, this is handwaving on the part of the person who posted this (and quite possibly, on the part of Merck).

And as has been said, Cummings is clearly innumerate and his nonsense should be deleted.

Osteopenia in Men

The article doesn't say anything about this condition occurring in men. Apparently this is possible, although uncommon. It would be good to say something about its relative prevalence in men and women in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More on controversy of definition

I just read a really interesting article from NPR (found here) on the emergence of osteopenia as a disease. Among other things, it describes exactly how arbitrarily osteopenia (as well as the cutoff for osteoporosis diagnosis) was defined during a WHO meeting as told by attendee Anna Tosteson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efadae (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ETYMOLOGY: Etymology: Gk, osteon + penes, poverty a condition of subnormally mineralized bone, usually the result of a rate of bone lysis that exceeds the rate of bone matrix synthesis. See also osteoporosis.58.165.242.100 (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody explain this math to me?

From the article:

"The definition has been controversial. Steven R. Cummings, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in 2003 that "There is no basis, no biological, social, economic or treatment basis, no basis whatsoever" for using one standard deviation. Cummings added that 'As a consequence, though, more than half of the population is told arbitrarily that they have a condition they need to worry about.'"

How does more than half the population get told this when the definition is to be beyond one standard deviation to onr side of the curve? Isn't this in direct definitional contradiction? So directly that it becomes an oxymoron?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Steven R. Cummings (who he?) is talking rubbish. He seems to think that 'one standard deviation' means the median (which it isn't). Even if he were correct then for the rest of his statement to be even remotely true, the entire population of the world would need to be tested so that half could be told this diagnosis. This has yet to happen. Frankly, Wikipedia shouldn't be the platform for any crackpot's or mistaken individual's views.15:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.120.131 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Osteopenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090428172053/http://www.nof.org:80/professionals/clinicians_guide.htm to http://www.nof.org/professionals/Clinicians_Guide.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

editing workplan

Hello everyone, I am a medical student enrolled in a Wikipedia editing course. Over the course of the next month I'll be editing this page with the following ideas as a starting point; would appreciate any suggestions or comments!

General:

Keeping in mind that this article should be useful to everybody, I want to focus on the perspective of a patient or caregiver trying to learn more about the meaning and implications of osteopenia. I will try to use non-medicalized language when possible and present the latest understanding of the diagnosis and its meaning. Throughout, I will try to improve grammar, for instance eliminating the passive voice. I also plan to add a section on "natural history" or "future implications" to give a better sense of the different paths that an osteopenia diagnosis can take (eg to osteoporosis vs not). Also will take everybody's awesome suggestions into account if they haven't yet been incorporated/considered!

Introduction:

-clarify what "lower than normal" means

-give some sentences such as "although many doctors consider osteopenia to be a precursor to osteoporosis, not ever person...".

-give a sense of the uncertainty of the implications for diagnosis, that science is ongoing for the correct approach

Causes: -consider list format for common causes for osteopenia, to clarify

-consider section headings for the different causes: eg 1) secondary to other causes, 2) female athlete triad syndrome, 3) secondary to celiac disease 4) aging -- with a note on genetic components

-balance out the emphasis on female athlete triad to present it as just one etiology

Diagnosis:

-clean up language

-reduce focus on Merck study

-focus on current best practice for diagnosis

Implications:

-add an "implications" section to better inform people about the possible outcomes of osteopenia (eg progression to osteoporosis, stabilization)

-consider breaking down by cause

Treatment

-consider adding a primary preventions section; how to avoid osteopenia itself

-clean up overlap in this section between osteoporosis vs osteopenia (ie. separate 1, 2 from 3,4)

-make sure this section is up to date with latest recommendations

Entymology

-consider changing this title to "history" to make it more accessible

-clean up this section ; break up second paragraph

-consider placement of this section -- would some of this information bet better earlier in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crennels (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi everyone! I am enrolled in the same course as Crennels and will be peer editing her contributions to this page. I have followed our course template for peer edits. My comments are as follows: Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • I think it's an excellent overall summary of the most salient points about osteopenia
  • You could add one sentence on each of the subheadings, to make the lede more of an overall summary of the article
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes!
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, see above comment
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, the number of people with osteopenia. I'm not sure where in the article this would go--maybe at some point a section on epidemiology could be added?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise!

Lead evaluation

See bullet points above. I think it's a wonderful concise summary of what osteopenia is, but could include a bit more about the other points you've added to the article around risk factors, etc.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The article says "an incomplete list of risk factors" this leaves me wondering what is missing. Is there a rationale for what risk factors you included?
  • I may add a one-sentence description of female athlete triad syndrome under risk factors? Might be nice to not have to click out to learn about that, without focusing on it too much.
  • Define DXA scanning at first mention under "Screening and diagnosis"
  • Should USPTF (United States preventive task force) actualy be USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force)? https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/
  • Period at the end of "The DXA scanner evaluates bone mineral density" paragraph (which maybe is repetitive with the sentence that starts "A common test for bone mineral density..."
  • "of note, medical conditions can affect absorption of calcium" consider includeinga couple of medical conditions that do this?
  • Link to Hormone Replacement Therapy article for Estrogen replacement under "Prevention"
  • Are there other ways in which Osteopenia is managed, other than pharmaceutical treatment? E.g. additional screening? Counseling? If so, these may be worth mentioning in a section on management which may also include pharmaceutical treatment.

Content evaluation

See bullet points above

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Yes
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Some, which I've noted elsewhere in this review
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • I might move the sentence "A common test for bone mineral density..." to the top of the Screening section
  • Move all citations to the ends of the sentences--I find them distracting when they're mid-sentence.

Organization evaluation

See above

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes definitely! I learned a lot from reading it, and it looks from the track changes like a lot of it is new content!
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Well-organized risk factors
  • Excellent explanation of changes in bone density with age in the context of osteopenia prevention.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Mostly organization, as I've mentioned above. It would be nice to add a little more on non-pharmaceutical management of osteopenia, if time allows.

Overall evaluation

Great work! Jammars (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

These are such clear and valuable suggestions, thank you!!! I'm going to take absolutely all of them, as time allows - if I don't get around to something I'll add it on the talk page under "future edits". I especially appreciate your suggestions around the lead section and around non-pharmaceutical treatment options. Regarding changing the treatment section to include non-medication options: I wanted this section to focus mostly on medications, since I think that is an open/ controversial question. However, you make a good point that if these are controversial, it should be made clear what the other options are. I'll think about whether I want to more formally do this, or add a few sentences to re-enforce the prevention piece. Thanks again!! Crennels (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)