Talk:Clinical depression

Archive 1 Archive 2

the Electroconvolsive therapy section isn't NPOV, and not in encyclopedic tone. I also wonder how general some of the comments are (such as that it usually happens 8 AM MTW). I hesitate in mentioning this, as it would be helpful to many people, but it isn't very encyclopedic. Themissinglint 21:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Unless someone comes up with a good reason not to, I'll be refactoring the "selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor" bit. Venlafaxine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, and a weak inhibitor of noradrenaline reuptake. Venlafaxine is therefore an SNRI (serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor), whereas Reboxetine is a NARI (noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor).

Also, this section makes no mention of Tianeptine and Amineptine. The former is a serotonin reuptake enhancer (SRE), and the latter is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor (DRI) which is schedule II.

Contents

1 Electroconvolsive therapy 2 Removal of "atropinic shock" and enema stuff 3 Large turnback 4 Reverted

Electroconvolsive therapy

I totally agree with the previous comment about Electroconvolsive therapy. This tone is not what you can expect from an encyclopedia. Do you think we should add a NPOV tag? --Cinoche78 17:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I say we just delete the whole POV part (starting at the second paragraph, as of this writing). It's basically an advertorial and I don't see any information that could be extracted from it by making it NPOV. Lawrence Lavigne 19:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Can we stop the ax-grinding? I'm referring to the appeal to unnamed authority that "A minority of the US psychiatric establishment view ECT as having more benefits than drawbacks." I'd like to actually see the figures which support that statement, especially since I think an actual doctor would not answer that question unless given context about the patient -- ECT has drawbacks, but it produces results in some cases where every other modality has failed. Asking a doctor to judge a treatment like that out of context is like asking them to judge the merits of amputation without telling them the condition of the limb in question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "atropinic shock" and enema stuff

I have removed a lot of rather peculiar material about "atropinic shock" (which has ZERO Google hits, except for this article), and about enemas. -- Karada 22:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are several Medline references to Atropine shock treatment.[1] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13887069&query_hl=3)[2] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13583249&query_hl=3)[3] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=5796680&query_hl=3)[4] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14249547&query_hl=3)[5] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14028486&query_hl=3) -- ElBenevolente 22:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we are to put it in the article, it should be done with caution, and copious cites, as this does not appear to be a widely-accepted treatment, and all of the cites given above are very old, and do not even give abstracts (the most recent one above is 1964), suggesting it is no longer in use. -- Karada 23:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A brief mention of the therapy in the article would probably be sufficient as a former treatment method. ElBenevolente 23:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Large turnback

Eh, don't you think that you've removed TOO much? Almost everything I've added, including things I've fixed:

• Why tricyclics are still used
• Antipsycotics for augmenting antidepressant blood concentrations
• Light therapy and exercises
• Ugly nameless link to Dr. Ivan's depression Central was fixed by me, but now it's ugly again
• Link to Wikibooks - Demystifying Depression removed (this was not added by me)

And more. Don't you think it's a good idea to think before destroying someone's else work?

Yes, thanks to someone from 81.218.179.183 - i don't see any more changes in whole Wikipedia from this one. I think we must revert. What do you think?

Varnav 12:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverted

Okay, I've reverted back to the edition before mr 81.218.179.183 made a big cleanup without any comments. Now, you complain about that some methods are not actual anymore and article is too large. And, we can not say that ECT is a replacement for atropinic shock method - these are two completely different methods. Insulin shock method is considered old now, but It's still used. So, it's probably a good idea to make a cleanup (not so radical)

Varnav 13:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)