Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Prostatitis -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
GA	This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Branching off of CP/CPPS

Looking for comments here on my proposal to reduce the CP/CPPS section to a single paragraph with a link to another page devoted to this complex subject, something like

Category III: CP/CPPS

Main article: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

This category, accounting for 90%-95% of prostatitis diagnoses,^[1] is also known as chronic nonbacterial prostatitis. Men in this category have no known infection, but do have extensive pelvic pain lasting more than 3 months.^[2] There are no standard diagnostic tests; diagnosis is by exclusion of other disease entities. Multimodal therapy is the most successful treatment option,^[3] and includes α-blockers,^[4] phytotherapy,^[5][6] and protocols aimed at quieting the pelvic nerves through myofascial trigger point release with psychological re-training for anxiety control.^[7][8] Antibiotics are not recommended.^[9][10]

Of course I'll cite each fact so that there is no opinion. Comments? DR?   Skopp   07:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this to replace the contents of the Signs and symptoms section at the start or to follow it? Silverye 09:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To replace 5.x, IOW all details under section (5).   Skopp   09:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would work well - with the appropriate link to the second/follow-on page which covers the condition in more detail. Silverye 11:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note, current page is nearing the limit at 37 KB, where 32 KB is the suggested limit. I find that as I page through it with a new visitor's eye, the article is very confusing and repetitive, with numerous Diagnosis and Treatment sections. I think it would benefit from a split, especially since the word prostatitis is a bit of a misnomer for CPPS anyway.   Skopp   12:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• No objections, moving ahead.   Skopp   01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Object - suggest arguments over content get sorted out first, else will just end up being a fork for (possibly) different slant (ie POV) on topic. Whilst I'm sure each component would be important as far as individual patients, wikipedia is not written for patients (remember wikipedia does not give medical advice) but general interested readers. I'm not sure there really ought to be that much longer coverage on teh topic (from an encyclopaedic copyediting). So, suggest keep this on hold for now, but in principle one might similarly split off other classification categories with this then just umbrella simple introduction. David Ruben ^Talk 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll hold off, but please note that the branching is suggested not for patients but for size and readability issues. Splitting off other classification categories is not warranted IMO because they are relatively small, straightforward and uncontroversial, medically and conceptually. Although I have nothing against it, in principle, and on second thoughts, it may be a good idea.   Skopp   02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that currently the Category III: CP/CPPS section is getting hard to follow given the extra info it has in it. It would work better following the simple Signs and symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis sections of the other ones (Category I & Category II) and keeping the text content minimal - with a seperate page giving the indepth content that the subject requires. Completely agree with David though in that we need to get the current arguments resolved prior to any split as the two current opposing Editors will just go to town on it. Silverye 09:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• To David Ruben — the page seems to be quiescent again. How do you feel about me moving forward on your suggestion about splitting off subtopics and leaving a small umbrella page? ► RATEL ◄ —Preceding comment was added at 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• To DGG - the page would best be changed and made more logical by leaving it as a short description of the NIH/NIDDK categorization of these 4 different disorders, and then link to separate pages on each of the four categories as shown above. This will also prevent people adding research from one area into another area (something that currently causes much friction). As it stands now, this page is like having a page called "Liver disorders" and then listing several quite different liver maladies, all on one page. It's not right, logically or medically. As it stands, the page is confusing and overlong, with numerous "symptoms" sections, etc ► RATEL ◄ 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Page shortening and new pages

As discussed before, this hodgepodge of a page, which has becoming horribly confusing and overlong by WP standards, is now split into a few new pages. I found while doing this work that the infoboxes at the top of each page were completely different, so re-amalgamating the various pages would do a violence to logic and go against the desire to make wikipedia a proper and lucid resource. So don't do it. Hopefully we can now leave this page in a fairly static form. I've also worked on various redirects to make all forms of nomenclature work, including CPPS, CP/CPPS, Chronic nonbacterial prostatitis etc. ► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Graph

Ratel, what's the source? DGG (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Various papers over the years showing incidence, the main one being PMID 16409145. Acute bacterial prostatitis is very rare according to all the papers on it, and CAT IV is an incidental finding on lab tests. ► RATEL ◄ 03:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Rechecking my figures for Cat IV, I found a new paper (PMID 18455767) putting incidence between 6 and 19%! I'll update the graph. Thanks for making me check this, very interesting finding that up to one in 5 normal men has pus cells in their semen! ► RATEL ◄ 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And it gets more complex, because those figures (6-19%) do not relate to prostatitis diagnoses, but simply a cross section of men. So that cannot fit into the graph neatly since it measures a different population group. I'll give this a think. Maybe two graphs, one showing incidence for all types in the normal population, and one showing breakdown of prostatitis diagnoses? Ideas? ► RATEL ◄ 03:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 13 July 2008, at 03:41.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Prostatitis".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Prostatitis

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.