Talk:Fatigue

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 Fatigue.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive box archives

Fatigue medical condition

My idea is to have a single article "Fatigue" that will be a fully medical article, i.e. conforming to Manual of Style for medical articles, etc., and will have a "Society and culture" section that describes the use of the meaning of fatigue in literature, how various classical authors understood it, history (i.e. ancient times / Egypt/Greece/Rome B.C., etc.) of the meaning of this term, etc. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.

.

would welcome contributions on this article, including basic sense check, i.e. does the article overall make sense? do any sections need particular work?

.

I'm not sure it captures the actual experience of many with medical fatigue - " like I'm trapped in treacle", " like I'm carrying around a 100 kg bag of rocks with me" "I can't do anything" etc..

.

Fatigue is a big and difficult medical topic that affects many people (this article gets about 400 page views a day) - and yet it tends to fall outside all the specialist disease silos; so that people often get very little help with it.

.

On your specific suggestion I'd argue the danger is that we are diverted by false and muddy connotations that the vague word "fatigue" brings with it, and that we should instead use our resources on the actual medical condition that so many struggle with. However understand if wiki convention etc would require something different.

.

Many thanks Asto77 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We may keep it as is for a while unless there are strong complaints against the current state of the article. Keeping it as is for a while will allow us to figure out what to do indeed and make a solid plan to follow. Overall, my idea is to make the "Fatigue" article a medicine article based solely on reliable medical source, and everything that is not medical such as the notion of fatigue in literature or a 100 kg bag to move to the section "Society and culture". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed punctuation errors and inconsistencies

I fixed many punctuation errors and inconsistencies. I would appreciate your feedback on these fixes. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should also replace all single quotes to double quotes, e.g.

DSM-5 lists 'fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day' as one factor in diagnosing depression.

should be

DSM-5 lists "fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day" as one factor in diagnosing depression.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks indeed! it is great to see the article becoming tighter and of higher quality. Asto77 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola picture

The description of the image is "Images showing individual symptoms of Ebola". Is there really no better picture to illustrate fatigue then one showing symptoms of Ebola? 194.41.216.169 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree it's not ideal. I encouraged the artist to upload the previous picture but seems that has been withdrawn. Perhaps we can ask a fatigue sufferer to take a picture of themselves and put it into the wiki system (via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard) Asto77 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can look for pictures in c:Category:Fatigue. For common symptoms, artwork is sometimes a better illustration than a photo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Quantum"

"where an underlying disease is present, the quantum of fatigue often does not correlate with the severity of the underlying disease" (under Presentation/ Common features) / "Fatigue that dissociates by quantum with disease activity..." (under Classification/ By effect). This terminology is completely baffling. How can a physical condition or a feeling have a quantum? What does it mean to "dissociate by quantum"? Knowledge of what a quantum is does not make these phrases any less opaque. Many thanks in advance to anyone who can reword these points in understandable language. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jaredroach (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested about a sourced claim that was reverted

I recently made an edit here and here that was reverted as not being WP:MEDRS. I raised the issue in a discussion about this edit and linked to where the community reviewed this form of Evidence Update source that was used, very similar to this one that was also supported by a major medical organization, and concluded that they did fit MEDRS. Can I please get some guidance on this one; is the claim I made and supported with this source sufficient to fulfill MEDRS? Pinging @Doc James and @Bluerasberry on this one as you provided helpful feedback on the past discussion. Thank you for any feedback or insight you can provide. FULBERT (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCORI is a perfectly reasonable source. Would adjust the text to "a PCORI review; however, found mantadine, methylphenidate, and modafinil no more effective than placebo in reducing fatigue, with side effects reported." Generally avoid "Significant" as it is a vague term, do they mean clinical or statistical for example... Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James Thanks for your feedback and helpful rephrasing. This is really a valuable way of approaching these forms of evidence updates. FULBERT (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCORI meets MEDRS. This is a large expert organization. I never mind when anyone questions the identity and legitimacy of these organizations because there are not many such organizations with the capacity to organize expert research on patient issues. This one does that. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Thank you for your helpful feedback and guidance on this. FULBERT (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]