Talk:Diabetes/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Question

Wjat are the effects of use of PDE-5 inhibitors in diabetic ulcers Malik aneesul islam (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Distinction from the Disease and the resulting diagnosis

In the intro to this article there is an incorrect statement that T1D/JD is "insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus". That is incorrect.

There are between 2 and 4 diseases, depending on which philosophies you follow, but the distinction between the "insulin-dependent" and "non-insulin-dependent" diagnoses has nothing to do with the disease, it has to do with the treatment. These references should be removed as they can contribute to the misinformation surrounding this group of diseases.

As an aside, I'd like to take an actual shotgun and shoot a giant physical hole in every web-page that references "Diabetes" as a singular thing. Unfortunately the bridge between rendered electronic code and a physical shotgun bird-shot (had to look that term up) won't have the effect I'm looking for. "Diabetes can be prevented."

Another aside, thank you to the authors who appear to have done an excellent job noting the rest of this page with disease-specific names, and attempting to not make any reference to the group as a singular disease. (User:miketosh) 19:10 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Five types of diabetes

It was in the news this week that researchers in Sweden and Finland have found there are five types of diabetes, not just two. This information could be used to update the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The information can be put in the diagnosis section or in research section. Lancet has this publication. We will need secondary source for this as that will be the primary source. Or maybe tertiary (meta analysis) source will be needed. That might take some time. What can be done till that time? I mean what should be the policy in that case? I am asking this here because it is applicable to other articles as well. May I request to share with me the right place to ask this? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to bump this too. I recommend adding a section 2.6 'New Research'.

The bar chart in the article is quite impressive. Sourced as from The Lancet,it would be easy to re-create. Basically, and this is big patient sample, it shows that nearly 40% of type 2 is actually 'mild-age-related' and that the researchers find only 22% is obesity related ....

References

--AlexBwineglass (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New research section

I agree with the recommendation above to add new research section or to work on existent research section. Also, I do not know if it is useful but would like to share an interesting link about a news tiled Indian doctors question new global norms for diabetes. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian Diabetes Risk Score

I was able to find a very interesting document which mentions about Indian Diabetes Risk Score. I do not where this document might be useful. I guess in the article related to diagnosis of diabetes, this information can be incorporated. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

These news can go in 'research' section of this article if found appropriate

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/vitamin-d-could-help-treat-diabetes-study/article23872967.ece

-- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I just found that this information is already available on Wikipedia over here. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Calling weight loss a cure

This is accurate "Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease, for which there is no known cure except in very specific situations."

The ref does not call it a cure just a remission.[1] And this is only for type 2 DM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes but as discussed here, can we use the same term of 'remission' in the article? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

Change the map of Diabetic Incidence Worldwide (2000) in the epidemiology section to a more updated version if diabetic prevalence. The reason this needs to be changed is the current maps data is incorrect and displays false information, as well as it is outdated.

This map shows the Global Prevalence of Diabetes from 2014 utilizing data from 195 countries. The current average rate of global diabetic prevalence is 9.2% or 92 out of every 1000 people.

Wwilken2 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks Wwilken2. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Males versus females

This ref says it occurs equally. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6350784/

What ref says it does not? This is a systematic review not a single study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits by Amandazz100 on low-carb diets

@Doc James: @Mellis: @Amandazz100: @Bradv: Pinging users who have recently edited this article. We should discuss this content before it is added to the article, it has now been re-added [2]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I will remove the content in question per this rant about Wikipedia trying to suppress low-carb diets [3]. Please note this individual is a conspiracy theorist who is trying to launch a campaign against Wikipedia on twitter (see the above diff). This person is trying to damage Wikipedia, we should not be hosting their edits which cherry-pick and mispresent scientific data. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Skeptic from Britain: Thanks for removing that. Here is the content that is currently disputed:

In 2018, increasing evidence has shown that T2 Diabetes can be reversed or controlled with a resulting reduction in diabetic complications. Individuals have been shown to be able to record non diabetic HbA1c through adapting their nutrition in one of three ways a) low carbohydrate diets b) very low calorie diets and c) ketogenic diets. These methods are increasingly being trialed by heath organisations including the National Health Service in the UK. Similarly, new research published in the The Journal of Pediatrics reveal the power of a very low carbohydrate diet to normalize blood sugars for Diabetes mellitus type 1 in all age groups.

I think we need to thoroughly review the sources for that edit before it can be added back in. I'm less interested in discussing the perceived motives of the contributors, though. Comments? Bradv🍁 19:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly believe the content should be added to this article The research is peer-reviewed, and duplicated in many studies, I feel it belongs in the management or lifestyle section. The scientific findings indicate dietary intervention is a powerful tool for the management and treatment of Diabetes. I agree with User:Bradv that attacking the credibility or motives of a contributor is not not in the best interests of resolving the matter of the content. I am not affiliated User:Amandazz100, I just want important research regarding dietary interventions to be shared with readers. ~ Mellis (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"New research" is not what we do here. Per WP:MEDRS, we don't use primary research sources. And I fail to see the conspiracy here. Natureium (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is peer-reviewed but "duplicated in many studies"? No. Some of this is new research that has not been independently replicated or reviewed. This is what Diabetes UK currently says in regard to low-carb diets [4] "Evidence suggests that low-carb diets are safe and can improve blood glucose levels in the short term, as well as helping to achieve weight loss and reducing the risk of heart disease in people with Type 2 diabetes. However, in the long term, low-carb diets are not more effective than other types of diet." Low-carb diets in the long-run are essentially useless, there is also a lot of pseudoscientific claims about them [5] Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"Peer-reviewed" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a source to meet MEDRS. Both of the first two sources cited are primary sources and should not be used to contradict reliable secondary sources. Even if they were duplicated in other studies, it would be wrong to use them to support biomedical claims in such a well-researched field. If these studies have validity, then they will receive attention in reviews, meta-analyses, and position statements from significant bodies. At that point, and not before, will it be appropriate for an encyclopedia to write content based on those secondary sources. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The refs:

• [6] small primary source
• [7] Press release
• [8] Popular press
• [9] Small study

So yah need better references per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I am very happy that this discussion has started here. My understanding is very less to comment anything about it. I am a mute spectator to this discussion. I have certain beliefs for sure but there is no point in sharing them if they are not proven science. I would suggest to add some information about this issue in the article so that people wont do edit war. Another idea can be to semi protect the article or other kinds of protections as might be decided by experienced editors / administrators. Again, as I have said, I have very little understanding about this and I accept that but I am happy to see this discussion. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderjoke (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Both titles are permissible titles for the subject, as amply demonstrated both by cited literature, and the fact that one already redirects to the other. In this discussion, however, after extended time, there is a policy-based consensus favoring the title that is both more concise and more likely to be commonly known to the average reader. It is worth noting that the category structure for this article has always been at Category:Diabetes, with article titles under that structure using both forms (e.g. Diabetes in Australia, Diabetes and exercise, and List of films featuring diabetes, but Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus, Diabetes mellitus and deafness, and Lifestyle causes of diabetes mellitus type 2), and the main template has always been at Template:Diabetes. It may be worth a wider discussion to consider whether subtopic articles should also be moved one way or the other, and particularly whether Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2 should be at Type 1 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes. bd2412 T 02:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• Diabetes mellitus → Diabetes

"Diabetes" already redirects here and thus is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and "diabetes" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. Diabetes insipidus is never referred to simply as "diabetes" so there is no likelihood of confusion by moving this article to its common name in accordance with Wikipedia's article naming policies. WP:CONCISE also supports this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 01:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:NCMED, we need to use the scientific name for the condition. Same reason we have a page on Myocardial Infarction. The page is at the correct name right now. Safrolic (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Myocardial infarction is a different case, because "heart attack" is also sometimes used to refer to Cardiac arrest, but "diabetes" is never used to refer to diabetes insipidus. It is only used to refer to Diabetes mellitus. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as common name, see WP:COMMONNAME. I'd support the same for heart attack. We then introduce the scientific name in the intro to educate our readers, which is our purpose anyway. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

NCMED outweighs COMMONNAME- it's a specific, additional guideline just for medical articles, as these articles are held to tighter styles/policies. Myocardial infarction is actually the specific example given in NCMED for how the scientific name is supposed to be used over the common name. Safrolic (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

NCMED says "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". Even in medical journals and other medical publications, "diabetes" is more commonly used than the full medical name, so NCMED supports this move. Polio was recently moved from poliomyelitis under the exact same rationale. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement "NCMED outweighs COMMONNAME" is incorrect. If there is any conflict between the two, COMMONNAME, a policy, would outweigh NCMED, which is just a guideline. Station1 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that they even conflict, though. NCMED states: But it has to be pointed out that per WP:MOSAT, this practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support I'm admittedly relatively new to reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, but it does seem to indicate that in cases of overwhelmingly common use, like this one, where the term is not slang or unscientific, the commonly used title is preferred.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. While sceptical of these ultrashortenings, this one seems pretty reasonable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support This article is about a medical condition. Per WP:NCMED: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term." In the medical literature, the name of this condition is diabetes mellitus. Spyder212 (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• But "Diabetes" is used all the time in English-language medical sources. And it isn't really a "lay term", since doctors use the term all the time. It's more like the short-form medical name vs the long-form medical name. Same as how we have articles Biceps and Triceps instead of biceps brachii and triceps brachii. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree! In medical practice, the term that we commonly use when discussing with patients is "diabetes" when we refer to diabetes mellitus. After some thought, I have changed my decision in support. Since the goal of this article is to be useful for those looking up information on diabetes mellitus, if we equip them with the term "diabetes," then they should have access to information using that term outside the office/hospital. Either way, the official medical name will be written in the first sentence. And the disambiguation page will be readily accessible for anyone looking for information on diabetes insipidus, which is way less common. Spyder212 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Having the term "diabetes" redirect to this article (the status quo for 12 years) also serves your purpose, doesn't it? Diabetes is the search term for diabetes mellitus, so it serves no purpose to rename this page to the ambiguous term "diabetes". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, the current title is much more likely to confuse the average reader, as many readers will know this topic simply as "diabetes" and not its more formal medical name. Rreagan007 (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The purpose of WP:NCMED is for precision and accuracy. "Heart attack" is the most common term but is too informal and may refer to a variety of heart conditions, so it is inappropriate as an article title. Likewise, "flu" is unambiguous but may still be seen as a bit informal. That is simply not the case for diabetes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support When physicians tell pts they have diabetes mellitus, they say they have diabetes. Diabetes insipidus is specified when that it the type that is meant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose idea: Diabetes (disambiguation) to help find relevant article. This should appease both sides, as the article name remains according to WP:NCMED, and WP:COMMONNAME is irrelavent, as the disambiguation page leads to the desired article. UNIX enthusiast (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Unacceptable. WP:NCMED is a guideline and WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Policies override guidelines. And regardless, both WP:NCMED and WP:COMMONNAME support this proposed move. Pointing people to a disambiguation page when the article they are looking for is almost always going to be this one is a bad idea. The hatnote at the top of this page takes care of the small percentage of readers looking for the other article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Upon closer inspection, I disagree. WP:NCMED points more to having the current setup of Diabetes being a redirect. UNIX enthusiast (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• In fact, NCMED supersedes COMMINNAME, as NCMED is part of WP:MOS, which states,”If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence,” NCMED being also known as MOS:MED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNIX enthusiast (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Don't agree that supporters have made a compelling case that "Diabetes" is a more common name than this article's more precise title. Diabetes has been a primary-topic redirect to this article for a long time, and one reason for that is the term's obvious ambiguity. We should not title articles with ambiguous terms. It's like titling an article about a species of organism with only it's genus name, especially when there are other important species. This article should retain its present title, and "Diabetes" should remain a primary-topic redirect to this article. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  23:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Diabetes" is only ever used in medical literature to refer to diabetes mellitus. A term is not ambiguous when it is only ever used to refer to one thing. That is the opposite of ambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not according to Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Please see Adrian J. Hunter's comment below. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• You mean this: "when used without qualification, refers to diabetes mellitus"? Stedman's Medical Dictionary supports this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• You appear to have missed the part about the "definition of diabetes[:] 'Either diabetes insipidus or diabetes mellitus'" Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• That part seems to be a listing of all conditions with "diabetes" in the name, but it then goes on to say that whenever "diabetes" is used alone without anything else ("unqualified") then it only ever refers to diabetes mellitus. That is conclusive evidence that there really is no actual ambiguity here as you keep claiming. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• I understand your preference that the term "diabetes" has somehow magically lost its ambiguity after many decades of being ambiguous and more than 12 years being ambiguous on Wikipedia; however, the Stedman's source should be enough to show you that the term "diabetes" is defined as either DM or DI. That makes it obvious that your claim is not neutral POV and invalid usage on Wikipedia. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, the Stedman's says that "diabetes" refers only to DM when it is unqualified. There is no ambiguity here. If a doctor says "you have diabetes", everyone understands that he means DM and not DI, so there is no ambiguity if everyone knows what that means. There is actually a far greater likelihood that readers will be confused by the title being "Diabetes mellitus", as the average person just knows it as "diabetes". We title articles at their most common name so that readers can quickly know they've found the article that they are searching for. The current title is much more likely to confuse the average reader than if it were simply titled "Diabetes". Rreagan007 (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. I cannot believe you made me look up this Ngram, but it proves that "diabetes" is used far more than the long form, even in books. Insipidus changes virtually nothing. When WP:PRECISION is not a factor, our policies WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME beat the living snot out of WP:NCMED, a mere guideline. Red Slash 00:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• NCMED is part of WP:MOS, which states,”If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence.” UNIX enthusiast (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• And my local county can declare that if any contradiction arises between the city council and Congress, then the city council always has precedence. It doesn't make it so Red Slash 04:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• For me, the whole policy vs. guideline debate is besides the point. The name "Diabetes" can be considered a "scientific or recognised medical name" based on a simple search for papers on Google Scholar, and I'm finding it to be more prevalent than "Diabetes mellitus" in scientific literature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• How do you get around the stark ambiguity of the term "diabetes"? Common or not, it's far too vague and unclear a term to be an article title. And since it acts as a primary-topic redirect to this article, there isn't any reason to change the status quo. Readers who search for "diabetes" will land here anyway. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  03:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Show me one research paper which has used "diabetes" without qualification to refer to anything other than Diabetes mellitus? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ngrams are unusable in this case because they don't show how many usages of "diabetes" referred not to diabetes mellitus, but to some other form of the disease. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  03:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Can you provide any examples of "diabetes" being used in medical sources for anything other than diabetes mellitus? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. An important point is being missed in this discussion. Two editors have asked me to provide examples of the ambiguous term "diabetes" being used to refer to something other than "diabetes mellitus". No one is contesting whether or not "diabetes" is a common term that mostly refers to "diabetes mellitus". Of course it is, and that's why it's a PRIMARYTOPICREDIRECT to this article. The point is that "diabetes" is an ambiguous term that could apply to any form of the disease. Say you're at a friend's house who has diabetes insipidous, and the two of you are discussing his disease. Will your friend call his condition "diabetes insipidous" every time he refers to it? Probably not. Both of you will probably just call it "diabetes". The ambiguity of the term "diabetes" makes it unsuitable as an article title. So per the AT policy regarding this, specifically precision and disambiguation, the term "diabetes" must be naturally disambiguated by the term "mellitus" in the title of this article. That's why "diabetes" has redirected to this page for 15 years, since 2004. This article has had its present title even longer. The article titles policy represents a strong community consensus, especially against titling articles with ambiguous terms. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  11:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• We go by usage in reliable sources, so if you can't provide a single example in any reliable source that uses "diabetes" to refer to "diabetes insipidous", then there is no ambiguity in reliable sources and Wikipedia policy supports this move. And to address your hypothetical "ambiguous" situation, your friend would never start out by saying "I have diabetes" if he has diabetes insipidous. He would first establish that it was diabetes insipidous rather than diabetes (mellitus). But even after doing that, I have never heard anyone with diabetes insipidous refer to it simply as "diabetes" in any context. They usually always use the full term "diabetes insipidous", since "diabetes" unqualified always refers to diabetes mellitus. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, we do go by usage in reliable sources, and Stedman's Medical Dictionary seems pretty reliable. My example was an informal one. And yet, just as in your scenario where in a friendly conversation the sufferer would begin with "diabetes insipidous", most of the reliable sources I've seen begin both in the title and the first paragraph with "diabetes mellitus" and then call it just "diabetes" in later text. The term is too ambiguous and should not be the title of this article. "Diabetes" can refer to DM or DI according to Stedman's, so there is no plausible way to title this article, which is about DM only, anything other than "Diabetes mellitus". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• According to the quoted Stedman's definition below, "when used without qualification, refers to diabetes mellitus". So that source does not support your claim that "diabetes" can refer to DM or DI. You keep claiming without evidence that "diabetes" unqualified can refer to diabetes insipidous, yet you can't find a reliable medical source that uses "diabetes" to refer to diabetes insipidous. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Stedman's should be enough since it defines the term "diabetes" as either DM or DI. Ignoring that won't make it go away. You're trying to title a Wikipedia article with a term that's been ambiguous for decades, and you haven't been able to get around that fact. Diabetes alone usually refers to DM, not always. Even Brittanica recognizes the term's ambiguity. See also here. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, usually. In fact, overwhelmingly so. We don't disambiguate London just because it could refer to London, Ontario. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27th ed, 2000) states under the definition of diabetes "Either diabetes insipidus or diabetes mellitus" and "when used without qualification, refers to diabetes mellitus". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is a common term in professional settings, it's the term people are familiar with, there's really not much ambiguity, and the recognizable title would be more helpful to readers. Also, strong support for moving "Diabetes mellitus type 1/2" to "Type 1/2 diabetes". – Þjarkur (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Question. If "diabetes" were not an ambiguous term, then why would we even need a disambiguation page? Should it be deleted? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Should we delete America (disambiguation)? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, Tbhotch, I'll bite. America is a PTOPICREDIRECT to the United States article in much the same way Diabetes is a PTOPICREDIRECT to this article. Why would we want to delete the America dab page when "America" is such an ambiguous term? On the other hand, you seem to show that titling this article with the ambiguous "diabetes" term would be the same as titling the US article "America". So what's your point? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  23:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• 'If "America" were not an ambiguous term, then why would we even need a disambiguation page?' An argument has flaws if it can be argumented with itself. BTW, if America is a PTOPIC for the US as of recently (see the RM), then Diabetes is a PTOPIC for mellitus under the same circumstances, i.e. People's association to the term. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Common name wins against official name. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• It has not been established that "diabetes" is the common name over "diabetes mellitus". Since the ambiguous "diabetes" can refer to anything on the dab page, it appears that "diabetes mellitus" is the more common name for "diabetes mellitus". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  23:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• In fact it has been proved by a) being redirected here for years, and b) hundreds of sources (both, specialized and non-specialized) discussing the topic as "diabetes". Literally, go to the street and ask people what they know about "diabetes" and in most instances they will describe you mellitus because the name is associated to it, that is Common name. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose To quote WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (emphasis added). There's no question that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Diabetes". The WP:COMMONNAME policy is itself titled "Use commonly recognizable names", and applies most strongly when the candidate names are dissimilar, so the formal name is in danger of not being recognized. That does not apply in this case, as the most common name is a prefix of the more formal name.

There are five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to be balanced: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. WP:COMMONNAME is a facet of the "recognizability" criterion and is not entitled to priority over the other four. Since it applies only weakly, we should mostly disregard it and focus our attention on the criteria which do apply directly.

This correct criteria to use in this discussion are the traditional opponents of WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. Since diabetes insipidus is a thing (originally "diabetes" just meant "excessive urination"), using the slightly longer formal name is a good example of natural disambiguation.

I have a personal preference for formal names in article titles, so I prefer "diabetes mellitus", but I can see arguments in the other direction. My objection to the various supports above is that they're not making valid arguments because they're applying the wrong standard. Please use the correct criteria. 167.88.12.231 (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, while diabetes mellitus is not the most common name, it's also not an obscure name. Natureium (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oversimplification. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support and change hatnote to insipidus accordingly. John M Wolfson (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @WWGB: Please see my comment above on why 1) WP:COMMONNAME does not call for using the most frequently used name if that would be "ambiguous or inaccurate", and 2) WP:COMMONNAME is not the most important naming criterion in the first place. 167.88.12.231 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I almost had a heart attack seeing how many relistings this had without me already voting. But yes, if something uses the phrase "commonly known as xxxxxxx", that should tell you where the article should likely reside. per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:IFITAINTBROKE. Both sides make valid points: diabetes mellitus is commonly known as simply "diabetes", but using "diabetes" for diabetes mellitus is ambiguous and possibly inaccurate. What I fail to see is the gravity of the problem that a move would solve vis-à-vis the new problem that would be created. The current situation seems the best of both worlds. Diabetes already redirects to Diabetes mellitus so readers looking for the "common" diabetes will end up at the right article, yet the title remains accurate. —  AjaxSmack  23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Support it makes sense.Catfurball (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is the common name among the public and medical professionals. Calidum 03:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Move Diabetes (disambiguation) to the base title instead. Diabetes mellitus covers multiple conditions; Diabetes mellitus type 2 is the most frequent, followed by Diabetes mellitus type 1. I'm a little surprised that search engines don't display Wikipedia highly for searches for "diabetes" let alone the mellitus types, but Wikipedia could certainly be doing a better job of disambiguating these concepts. Moving this article to diabetes is not going to help Wikipedias search engine position for relveant topics. I'm seeing a lot of WP:COMMONNAME supports in this move request. COMMONNAME is a supplement to the 5 article title criteria: RECOGNIZABILITY, NATURALNESS, PRECISION, CONCISENESS, and CONSISTENCY. COMMONNAME largely overlaps with RECOGNIZABILITY; and I'm not going to dispute that diabetes is more recognizable. Diabetes is more NATURAL only if there's no reason to disambiguate between inspidus and mellitus type 1/2 (I think this is worth disambiguating). PRECISION; "diabetes" doesn't distingiush inspidus or mellitus types. CONCISE: "diabetes" is more precise at the expense of precision. CONSISTENT: WP:NCMED suggest Diabetes mellitus as a preferred title. @Doc James: "When physicians tell pts they have diabetes mellitus, they say they have diabetes"; when physicians say that, I would assume they are usually telling their pts they have Diabetes mellitus type 2; might it not be better to disambiguate "diabetes" further than it is at present? Plantdrew (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Symptoms of diabetes mellitus

As some one who has had diabetes mellitus since early 2000 A.D., I would like to suggest an addition to the list of symptoms in this article - constipation. This I had, as constipation can be a sign of dehydration, before my diabetes was treated with insulin. Vorbee (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing this article throughout the Fall 2019 semester

I began evaluating this article as part of a class assignment (I'm actually the teacher but learning Wikipedia with my students) and the line in the lead paragraph about prevention is very misleading, as T1DM cannot be prevented. I plan to work on this article throughout the semester. I will describe my plans here before making big changes, and I'm excited to contribute! UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Autoimmune disease

This article says that the cause of Type One diabetes is unknown, but is not Type One diabetes believed to be an autoimmune disease, where the immune system attacks the beta cells in the panccreas? Vorbee (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we know it is an autoimmune disease. There is a bit more details about this on Type 1 diabetes but it would make sense to include a statement about autoimmunity on this page as well. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

New refs: recommendations and systematic review

Here are some new refs, including one summarizing current recommendations in terms of nutrition for diabetic people, and a few related systematic reviews. --Signimu (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Adverse Childhood Experiences Study

Utl jung added Adverse Childhood Experiences in a separate paragraph. I wonder if this is actually too detailed for this article, or whether it should be mentioned only in the DM2 subarticle? I have also removed some of the non-MEDRS references added. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Point taken re: non-MEDRS references for this article. But ACE captures a significant macro-aspect to DM2 development that does not fall under lifestyle or dietary factors presently addressed in that section. The disciplinary nature of research in that domain, too, is broader in that it straddles medicine, social work, and psych. I'm happy to replicate the edits in the DM2 subarticle, but I would argue that it makes sense for that ACE link to be established in the general article as well. The average reader reading about diabetes generally would reasonably benefit from that link being suggested to them. And as it stands, the addition is brief enough not to significantly weigh down the section. Utl jung (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Intro

“ Prevention and treatment involve maintaining a healthy diet, regular physical exercise, a normal body weight, and avoiding use of tobacco. ”

I think it is wrong to suggest that type 1 diabetes can be prevented with a healthy diet, regular exercise, maintaining a normal body weight and avoiding tobacco. Can we look at rephrasing this? JFW | T@lk 10:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Have rephrased it. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of mellitus?

The box near the top gives the pronunciation for "diabetes" but not for "mellitus". ??? Bhami (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added the IPA pronunciation for "mellitus" as well as corrected some mistakes in the IPA pronunciation for "diabetes" based on the IPA pronunciations found here. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Diagnosis: WHO diabetes diagnostic criteria Table

Presentation of WHO's criteria in this table format is less than ideal. Whereas classification as Normal requires that BOTH the 2-hour glucose and the Fasting glucose criteria as stipulated in the table are satisfied, classification as DM only requires one of the two (as stated in the text above the table).

Perhaps presenting the criteria in a graphical form can result in better clarity.

Tony Ho (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Increase risk of type 2 diabetes from antipsychotic use?

Shouldn’t a section on the considerable risks these carry be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.75.18 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr: @Mtpaley: I think that it would be really beneficial to discuss the question about severe mental illness being a risk factor for diabetes. The term "severe mental illness" is refering to major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, psychotic depression and bipolar disorder. And, according to scientific evidence from systematic reviews with meta-analysis, it was observed that people with severe mental health diagnosis are approximately two times more proned to develop diabetes compared to a control group (general population). It is believed that this association may be multifactorial. One important contributor is antipsychotic side effects which lead to both metabolic abnormalities and weight gain (actually, this is already addressed in the Antipsychotic Wikipedia article). Additionally, there's evidence that people with severe mental illness present high levels of sedentary behaviour, which further contribute to the increased risk in this specific population to develop diabetes. This is quite important in the sense it inform health care professionals, politicians and other stakeholders, and action plans may be implemented, like proper screening risk assessment, interventions and monitoring strategies that may be more adequatly tailored to the specific needs of this vulnerable population. Besides the systematic reviews that I cited previously to support my states, further information can be found on this review published on Nature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25445848/. I really think that this is an important topic, so I decided to bring this into discussion. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!JanelaD (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit provided the explanation that SMIs are not a 'cause' of diabetes, a statement that your edit contained and the sources don't say. This source stated "Although antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment in SMI, a causative link, albeit of uncertain magnitude, seems to exist between antipsychotics and diabetes mellitus", does not seem strong enough to use with certainty. Zefr (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! I find this a very interesting discussion, because too often associations are misleading as cause-effect phenomenons and I can have misinterpreted this information. In the edit that I made I stated that being diagnosed with SMI is a risk factor, ie. it increases the risk to develop diabetes. Which I think that can be somewhat different: rather than being a determinant and isolated causative factor, it may be an important contributor that increases susceptability instead. Antipsychotic medication side effects are believed to explain this increased susceptability, however according to the review that I addressed: "Although concerns have been raised about the effects of antipsychotics, to blame these drugs alone for the increased risk of diabetes mellitus in people with SMI misses the full picture and might hinder attempts to prevent diabetes mellitus in this population.". Then, the review discusses an array of possible underlying mechanisms that may explain the observed increased risk. Also, the references that I cited were systematic reviews that included mostly observational studies which evaluated and compared the prevalence estimates between individuals with SMI and controls. Do you think @Zefr: and @Mtpaley: that, despite the statiscally significant higher prevalence and that there may be several underlying potential mechanisms (besides medication side effects), there isn't still sufficient evidence to conclude that SMI may be a risk factor for diabetes? JanelaD (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to add more food for thought on this topic, I just found this about risk factors in a Wikipedia article: "Risk factors or determinants are correlational and not necessarily causal, because correlation does not prove causation. For example, being young cannot be said to cause measles, but young people have a higher rate of measles because they are less likely to have developed immunity during a previous epidemic.".JanelaD (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's best to rely on a rigorous review in a reputable journal or organization position statement to make such assertions for diabetes. The sources offered in the edits to date are not strong enough. Zefr (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

So using the same logic you can say this "Mental illness cannot be said to cause diabetes but mentally ill people are more likely to have a lifestyle that increases the chance of diabetes.". This is not saying that mental illness causes diabetes but there might well be a correlation and that could be in a new section or article. Mtpaley (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sheida.karamnejad.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Management of Diabetes through Dental Care

Hey guys, I would like to ask you to add and edit the sections "Complications" and "Management" with some core information about dental care for people with diabetes. For the first section, the International Diabetes Federation published in 2009 the guideline for "Oral health for people with diabetes" [10] that states "Maintenance of proper oral hygiene for good oral health is an accepted part of the normal recommendations for a healthy lifestyle. Poor oral hygiene is associated with gingivitis, which can progress to more severe infection and inflammation leading to periodontitis. Infectious disease is known to be more common in people with diabetes if blood glucose control is poor, and inflammation is known to be associated with a decrease in insulin sensitivity and thus potentially a worsening of blood glucose control" [2] . It also gives 5 recommendations to the clinical care of the people with diabetes:

1) Enquire annually as to whether each person with diabetes follows local recommendations for day-to-day dental care for the general population, and (where access permits) attends a dental professional regularly for oral health check-ups.

2) Enquire at least annually for symptoms of gum disease (including bleeding when brushing teeth, and gums which are swollen or red).

3) In those people not performing adequate day-to-day dental care, remind them that this is a normal part of diabetes self-management, and provide general advice as needed. Advise those not attending for regular dental check-ups on the importance of doing so (where access permits).

4) In those people with possible symptoms of gum disease, advise them to seek early attention from a dental health professional.

5) Education of people with diabetes should include explanation of the implications of diabetes, particularly poorly controlled diabetes, for oral health, especially gum disease.

It is important to inform to the Wiki community about the importance of visiting the Dentist to avoid the adverse effects and complications of a non-controlled diabetes. Currently, at OECD level, very few countries count with recommendations and public health policies aimed to improve the oral health of people with diabetes [3], so this article could be a factor for change.

In addition to the second section, "Management", recently, a Cochrane Review synthesizing evidence from 30 trials (results from 2443 participants) showed that periodontitis treatment reduces blood sugar levels (measured by HbA1c) in diabetic patients on average by 0.43 percentage points (e.g. from 7.43% to 7%; 4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after receiving the treatment compared with no active treatment or usual care. A difference of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) was seen after 6 months (12 studies), and 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) at 12 months (one study) [4]. This reinforce the necessity to include some information about the urgency of dental care in people with diabetes. I really like to read your thoughts and suggestions about this!! Thank you! Chamaquitoso (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead length

Hi all - Just having a look at this, I fear that the length of the lead section might be far too long and include too many in-line lists of symptoms, complications, treatments etc and could (and should) be surmised. As a number figure, it's currently seven paragraphs long and just over 550 words. As per WP:LEAD, a well-written lead should be no more than four paragraphs. Any thoughts or objections to starting to clean and shorten it up? Tim (Talk) 11:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to boldly take a crack at it! At a quick readthrough, I think the lead's introductions of type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes could also be shortened quite a bit. Ajpolino (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I've just taken a stab at trying to condense it down. I've broken it into (1) description and pathophysiology, (2) prevention (for T2DM) and ttreatment, and (3) prevalence. Let me know what you think :) Tim (Talk) 10:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: Hi! Just following up on your revert, would you mind explaining a bit about what was better in the previous version? Tim (Talk) 07:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I would turn the question to you to ask that you describe what changes of yours made the article clearer. Your edit included a spelling error (..."conditions effecting" - "affecting") and a poorly-formed sentence ("There is no cure for most cases of diabetes, however some treatments exist." - incorrect use of however as a conjunction). Otherwise, I saw no clearer text or organization, indicating the previous version was better. Zefr (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: I think as a matter of courtesy and to encourage productive collaboration, the burden is really on the person who reverts an edit to actually explain why they did so (i.e., more than just "Better version" in the edit summary). Keeping with the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, it might be better in the future to fix simple spelling mistakes or wording choices rather than wholly revert an edit which also included much-needed updates/improvements to other sections. As to what I think my edit improves in terms of content, it:

• defines relevant terms earlier ("hyperglycaemia" etc),
• actually adds a definition for DM rather than just describing the pathogenesis of the different types,
• updates the management recommendations to align with current literature and consultant medical advice,
• provides more specific timeframes for disease onset and the contributing factors,
• introduces other types of DM (other than T1, T2, and GDM) in an easier-to-read way by breaking a context-less in-line list into a couple sentences.

If you think that any of these changes weren't actually improvements, I'm always happy to work with you on an acceptable revision :) Tim (Talk) 23:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments on the existing version vs. your edits:

1. defines relevant terms earlier - the existing version uses plain, clear language and has numerous inline wikilinks; see WP:MEDLANG

2. actually adds a definition for DM rather than just describing the pathogenesis of the different types - the lede of the existing version provides a sufficient, straightforward description. A common non-medical user would likely read the lede and have an adequate grasp of the topic. For more advanced users, the article is well-developed and sourced to supply a definition

3. updates the management recommendations to align with current literature and consultant medical advice - you inserted the Dynamed source which is commercial spam. There are numerous MEDRS sources that could be checked for updates on management

4. provides more specific timeframes for disease onset and the contributing factors - I didn't see these changes as necessary; they are covered in the article

5. introduces other types of DM (other than T1, T2, and GDM) in an easier-to-read way by breaking a context-less in-line list into a couple sentences - the content is not improved; see WP:MEDMOS, writing style

In summary, the previous version was sufficiently clear and better for the common user. Zefr (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: Just following up:

1. You're absolutely correct, the previous version did use plain and clear language. That doesn't mean it can't be improved. It used wikilinks to replace defining simple medical terms like hyperglycaemia, which is not reader-friendly and does not support our readers to actually understand the content and context. In fact, the article does not define hyperglycaemia at all despite it being used as part of other terms further down in the article. We should not be asking readers to chase links to understand terms - see MOS:DRAFTNOLINK.

2. Again, I agree - the previous lead did provide a sufficient description... of the pathogenesis of the different types of diabetes (T1DM, T2DM and GDM). It did not actually define DM as the overarching disease class that this article is about. Regardless, the purpose of reverting is to prevent deterioration of the article, not just because a previous version of the article was sufficient (just because it's sufficient, doesn't mean it can't be improved).

3. I'm a bit taken aback by your claim that DynaMed is "commercial spam". I was unable to find any discussions (let alone consensus conclusions) about DynaMed being poor quality or unreliable, especially as it is very commonly relied on in practice. DynaMed is a literature review tool (which is highly favoured in WP:MEDRS), which synthesises literature and clinical practice guidelines to provides point of care advice. The cited content was written by subject matter experts (a professor and clinical director), reviewed by three professors (including one specialist endocrinologist), and approved by another endocrinology professor representing the American College of Physicians. For your reassurance though, I also reviewed the management approaches listed on BMJ Best Practice and ClinicalKey (both are peer-reviewed, evidence-based point of care tools) which provided the same recommendations - I'm also happy to cite these as supporting sources, if you feel it's justified and not an overacting.

4. I don't exactly feel as though you not "see[ing] these changes as necessary" is justification for revert. I see them as an improvement as they provide more specific, evidence-based figures rather than broad statements - would you be able to please describe why you believe that these figures are actually a deterioration of content?

5. Can you be a bit more specific about your concerns than just "the content is not improved", please? It's hard to collaborate on an improved revision unless we're able to discuss the exact things that you feel should be refined.

I would encourage you to review the purpose of reverting, and as I mentioned, I'm more happy to work with you to fix any specific concerns you have with the revision so that the article continues on a productive, iterative journey. Tim (Talk) 03:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Items 1,2,4 and 5 can be reviewed and edited by the usual process of editor consensus, WP:CON. For #3 about Dynamed, it should not be used, as it is a commercial service and would likely have little meaning to the common non-medical user - see WP:MEDMOS, writing for the wrong audience. A reference like the NIDDK of NIH is more suitable for general readers. Zefr (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience while I've been away. Again, I do not feel as though you have actually, explicitly explained or justified reverting my contributions. I've explained why they improve the article, and don't see where any actual issues are. If you do have constructive contributions to add, I'm always happy to workshop the content with you, but I need some solid points to improve otherwise I see no reason as to not reinstate my improvements. In regards to citing Dynamed, just because something is a commercial service doesn't mean it's not reliable - Elsevier and Oxford are for-profit companies, does that mean we should never cite any articles published by them? A decision to reject content because it's cited by Dynamed is not one that you can just exert without a discussion and community consensus. In regards to WP:MEDMOS#Writing for the wrong audience, that does not relate to which sources are reliable - our role is to interpret consensus clinical practice guidelines, like Dynamed and Up-To-Date, and accurately represent them in a way that the general public can understand. WP:RSE and WP:MEDSCI supports using sources like Dynamed that synthesise position statements and clinical practice guidelines, as it represents agreed scientific consensus.

In terms of the NIH page you linked to, I'm more than happy to include this as a source but I think it needs to be paired with more descriptive, scientific resources that complement that over-simplified FAQ-style page. It also doesn't distinguish between the different types of diabetes, mention any pharmacological management strategies, and the self-management recommendations are very clearly geared towards T2DM. Tim (Talk) 09:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing further on this discussion, and await input from other editors. It may be useful for you to post a discussion at WT:MED. Zefr (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not going to add this to WT:MED myself as I still don't see any specific concerns that hold I think merit and are worth broader discussion. If you want to search for wider discussion though, I'm happy to summarise and share my thoughts there so we can work towards a palatable outcome :) If no one adds anything here and you have no further comments, or you decide not to 'escalate' to WT:MED, I'll likely start gradually reinstating parts of my original revision with your commentary in-mind and a better copyedit to fix the structural language mistakes. As always, if you have specific concerns with the content, feel free to add your own revision to address them and we can discuss as needed. Tim (Talk) 07:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Savannah yhzzz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Savannah yhzzz (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sushuruta and charaka

In this reference given below https://books.google.co.in/books?id=i0qojvF1SpUC&pg=PA3&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false States that in 5th century AD sage sushuruta and charaka distinguish the types of diabetes mellitus but the problem is that sushuruta wasn't even alive in 5th century AD as he was born in 600BC.So this article is clearly not a reliable references David dclork li (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)