![]() | Osteogenesis imperfecta has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 5, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Osteogenesis imperfecta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
See WP:MEDMOS for suggestions on layout and style |
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Osteogenesis imperfecta.
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A fact from Osteogenesis imperfecta appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JillianSherer, Camella Mangum, Ncw1995, GhostRider18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A bit more on the actual genetic causes would probably be apporpriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I have OI, and I'm generally good with that. I hope my edits are not biased because of that though. I think all I added was history of research, I hope I didn't copy that medical site too much, and the name Michael J. Anderson. To be honest I didn't know he was OI and I was hesitant to put him in. However the NY Times, IMDB, and the site for a movie he did were just three of the places to say it so it seems fairly solid. It's not unusual for OIs to strengthen in adulthood. Almost all of my fractures occurred before I was 14. (Although I still can't walk) If I briefly mention OI to the page on him would that be acceptable or too activist. I really am not any kind of activist of anything so wouldn't want to offend.--T. Anthony 06:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I took that off because I don't see what that's referring to. I have OI and most everything in this is mostly mainstream. The article has in least 8 citations and more now. There are some things about hormonal issues that strike me as a bit off, but the little citation { {fact} }(take out spaces) should've sufficed there.--T. Anthony 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
5/10/06: I'm a 4th year medical student working in a pathology lab, and I came across OI classifications that I had been unfamiliar with. I reviewed multiple pathology textbooks as well as the most recent literature (2 new references added.) Based on what I discovered, I expanded upon the classification system outlined in Wikipedia. Hope it is helpful and/or consistent with others' literature surveys. -Andrew
12/19/06: I noticed that someone changed the order of severity of the classifications from "Type I is the most common and mildest form, followed by Type IV, Type III and Type II." to "Type I is the most common and mildest form, followed by Type II, Type III and Type IV." While the latter/current statement is numerically chronologic, it suggests that Type IV is the most severe form. To the best of my review of the pathology texts, such is not the case, and the former sentence is more accurate. -Andrew
T. Anthony:
My uncle has OI and I have always been curious to learn more about the disease, that's why I chose it for my topic for my paper. I am wondering if you can help me with any more sources or any other information that might be useful for my paper. Everything I am finding is loaded down with so much medical terminology that I am having a hard time deciding what to write. Thanks.AngiH 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone should edit the section that says Bisphosphonates do not affect adult OI patients. BP do increase bone mass in adults who are no longer growing; OI is no exception. BPs decrease bone resorption, leading to an overall increase in bone density. They are used for this purpose to treat osteoporosis in adults.
I'll get to it when I next get a chance, otherwise someone else can feel free to jump in. Dr Aaron 07:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
in the treatment section, there is a para on fosamax and then a section heading for bisphosphonates. would make more sense to put the fosamax stuff under bisphosphonates (as it is one)? kieran bowdren 19.09.09 Bowdren (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this page through Recessive-Dominate genetics and genetically linked diseases, and this disease sounds very similar to something that affects my mother, sister, uncle, and affected my grandfather. It's known that the disease is hereditary, and dominant, it has caused weak bones among all of them, my mother in fact had a vertebra collapse simply from breast-feeding (after that she was told that she needed her calcium more than her newborn babies need natural breast milk.) My sister also has had numerous fractures throughout her life. A bone density test on my mother showed that she had density drastically and significantly under that necessary to diagnose Osteoperosis (surgeons repairing a fracture of her femur told us that it was like drilling into sugar cubes), and my sister at the age of 25 had a bone density scan that showed her to have the bones of a healthy 80-year old.
Although the primary issue is similar, (the weakness of bones, and their insufficient generation) There are quite a few symptoms. As those suffering from this disease in my family are relatively healthy otherwise, it is definitely not similar to Type II. As there is no known loss of hearing, nor a drop off of fractures after puberty, while accounting for the fact that they are simply more careful now. People don't go around pushing my sister off her tri-cycle anymore, and neither are people jumping on my mother's back.
But they are certainly just as susceptable to breaks, as evidenced by my sister falling simply from ice-skating and breaking her femur (again), and my mother falling in an airport from a people-mover at ground level to floor and breaking three limbs, sparing her right arm only because she was reaching out trying to catch herself.
There is also no bone disformity, the bones appear otherwise completely healthy.
In many ways this disease is similar to OI, and would certainly fit the meaning of the phrase "Osteogensis Imperfecta", but does not share many of the other effects that are related to OI. In many ways, it seems to impact similarly to and with symptoms that are much more like Osteoporosis, except not being age-related, and is definitely genetic. It's also known that it correlates with Hyperphosphatasemia after puberty but not before.
Would anyone with OI, or knowledgable of OI be able to say if it would be typical to have high levels of Alkaline Phosphatase after puberty but not before? The big related causes to hyperphosphatasemia, and related to bone disorders appear to be Paget's disease, and cancers of the bone (of which this is certainly not cancerous), and Paget's disease appears to not be genetic at all, and beside that, it is said to be rare in people under 40 years of age, I would think it unusual to have 4 people in a direct bloodline have paget's disease from the age of about 5.
Could anyone help me out with any information?
In the beginning of Season 5 of Scrubs (TV series), doesn't Elliot have an OI fellowship at a different hospital? And if so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the Potrayal in popular culture section? Mmace91 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
My nephew has this and it has also been determined that he has a high tolerance for pain. I was wondering if this is common among OI patients. Because of his high tolerance, and lack of family history, his condition was not detected until he was nearly two years old, and not until after he was taken away from his family under accusations of child abuse. I believe a section on accusations of child abuse should be added as I understand it is pretty common. I'd add it myself but due to my family's experience I wouldn't be able to write it NPOV.nut-meg 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm 16 and have OI and I too have a high tolerance of pain. My theory is that since we(people with OI) are born with this desease just naturally build a higher pain tolerance with each addional break. That being said, even though I have a higher level of tolerance I am still taking Pain killers such as fentanyl patches.
I'm also 16 and have OI and I agree with the above. I definitely cry a lot but if I break something, I don't cry about it or anything. Naturally, I feel pain, but I'm so used to the pain that I try to handle situations instead of focusing on any pain. I also tolerate every other kind of pain better than others. Perhaps this is just tolerance we acquire over time or could there be some research conducted? --Smaaaaash 06:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We should add that there have been cases of kids being taken for there parents because Social Services thinks that the parents are abusing the kids when in fact the kids suffer from OI. I will start to work on it soon. Fswiergul 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Death before the age of 25 is common in Type IV, due to the increased pressure on the body from the curved spinal column. When a person with Type IV develops, all the organs are pushed into a body that is smaller and malformed, due to constant breaking. When the spine pressure is combined with organ pressure, the patient suffers a massive heart attack and dies."
-Is there a source/reference for this claim? I haven't seen it in any clinical research. Most research indicates that type IV life expectancy is normal or near normal. I'm going to remove this until a source is identified.
I was thinking we should add not everyone with OI fits perfectly into the types. I have had OVER 400 breaks and rebreaks, had to get my spine fused because of because of servere spine curvature, was born with multible freature in defferent stages of healing. But I don't have discolouration of the sclera,Loose joints, Poor muscle tone or hearing loss. I just think it would be nice to add.
Fswiergul 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if someone added (in the popular culture references section) a mention of the "30 Rock" episodes in which a character had Avian Bone Syndrome. From Google results, it appears most people don't realize there is a real condition that that is based on (although portrayed in a wildly inaccurate way). 68.162.136.251 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently the article reads "Save for the increased risk of fatal bone fractures, life expectancy is normal". This isn't true though, 25% of people who have type I suffer from Basilar Invagination, which left untreated will often progress to fatality. The only study I can find on life expectancy is from the BMJ which shows life expectancy reduced by about 5 years at birth, but up to 10 years accounting for margin of error. While this comes from a reputable source, the doctor who published is rather less reputable. I have changed the sentence to "Life expectancy is slightly reduced compared to the general population due to the possibility of fatal bone fractures and complications related to OI Type I such as Basilar Invagination." BigTurnip (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
When my Mom first saw him she thought he had OI, but I didn't really. However the sources seem to indicate he does so I added him. I hope I'm not jumping the gun here.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he does have OI Type 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.186.125 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There are currently two "Diagnosis" sections right next to each other. I suspect there should only be one, and perhaps they can be merged together, but I don't have enough knowledge of this subject to feel comfortable editing them. Nevertheless, is there any reason why there should be two of the same section in this article? Metheglyn (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a link to the Care4BrittleBones foundation and it got deleted. Why? Timkro (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article. 31.53.185.104 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There are no references showing notability thus I have removed this long list of trivia [2]
We are not here to watch tv shows and then list if disease X appears in it. IMO this is not encyclopedic. Second issues is that it is not verified. And third issue is that it is original research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00728-X JFW | T@lk 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't really great in the way that it approaches types. As our understanding of genetics have improved, as has our understanding of the causes of this disease, the types have changed. There were three main eras of types. In the first era, let's say 1895–≈1960, there were only two types: tarda and congenita. After that, the numbering system came into play. But it was all based on clinical traits. After around the 2000s when genetics were finally usable as a diagnostic criteria, the types started to get mapped on to specific mutations. So a lot of people have a clinical type and then a genetic type. And still more people don't know their genetic type because a lot of insurance companies don't consider it important information in terms of treatment. There are also far more than 10 classified types now. I believe that the last OI Foundation meeting I sat through one of the doctors stated that there were 24 types classified as of 2019. We need to totally rethink how this article approaches types. There's a historical lens to all this that is being ignored. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe that User:Bonelink is a representative of the OI Foundation, as [redacted]. They added some statements about the OIF which I reverted, and I posted a message to their talk. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 20:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Right then......
NB: I'd go to GA first before FAC. This could be challenging....more later - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Just a thought, but Samuel L. Jackson played Elijah Price/Mr. Glass in "Unbreakable" and "Glass". How about adding that to the "Society and culture" section or maybe a new section of "in pop culture" or something? He is quite a character. 84.63.45.187 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Happy to pick this up. You've done a lot of good work on this that I've watched occasionally from WT:MED, and a quick skim leaves me with a positive opinion. Apologies if I take some time to circle back with a review and bring it to completion; punctuality isn't always my best quality these days, but I'm hoping to get to this quickly. Vaticidalprophet 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Starting to get to this now, Psiĥedelisto. Broadly speaking, this is good work. My notes are mostly about the complexities of writing medical articles for broad audiences. For topics someone cares a lot about and knows a lot about, it can be difficult to get into the right headspace of writing for people with very little background knowledge (I struggle with the balance myself).
Early notes:
Will return with more, although no significant complaints. Sorry about the wait (both present and future) -- getting to all kinds of things. Vaticidalprophet 12:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Currently says,
"Dogs who are heterozygous for OI should only be bred to non-carriers. Homozygous carriers should never be bred, unless it is to a non-carrier."
These two sentences are both saying the same thing. The source cited for those sentences actually says that a dog homozygous for OI should never be bred, period. 2601:4C0:8100:194:B31F:8804:EF70:F58 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)