Talk:Perivascular space

Non-peer review

Looks good, only suggestion I have at this point is to shorten the headings under "Current research" to "Causes of VRS dilation"and "Association of dilated VRS and other diseases" to avoid being redundant. Other than that, your organization is good, and the introduction is particularly clear and direct. Well done, let me know if you have any more questions.Stempera (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! We will make that change right away. Kniemeyer (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous

The section titled "Clinical significance" is in error as of this time. V-R spaces are of no clinical significance and by definition are not present in disease states. What is listed currently in that section are things that may look like V-R spaces but actually are not. 208.73.14.242 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give a pointer to any literature backing up that statement. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys, overall I found the article to be really well put together. I liked the breakdown you used because it clearly separated the topic into functional groups that made it more easy to understand and as whole provided a comprehensive view of your topic. A few suggestions that I have are that in the causes and significance paragraph, there were many listed symptoms from dilation and I was just interested in how they tested this, if they induced it in rats or were looking at people and also I think that it might be helpful if there was a source cited directly with the listed symptoms just to provide some proof for that. I also thought that the current research section was really interesting and I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, it would be interesting to see why these are associated with a disease such as Alzheimer's and what that might mean for the patient. Again, I don't really know if it would be possible to provide that kind of information but I was interested in knowing over. Overall I think it looks good, Elizabeth S (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback! In the causes and symptoms section, information regarding how the data on symptoms associated with extreme dilation was gathered was added. The reference was cited at the end of the information that came from that study. This might not be readily apparent though so it was inserted also right after the list of symptoms as you suggested. Horowitr (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a very well organized article. The way it is written is simplified enough that readers of various scientific backgrounds can understand it. I think that the picture is really helpful in understanding the article (though if you can find more it wouldn’t hurt) and I think that the page is very thorough overall. Still, I have a few suggestions that hopefully will be of some help. First, if you could add some more hyperlinks to some terms it may be helpful for readers who are somewhat less informed in medical terms (i.e. hypertension, stroke, ataxia, etc). I think it would also be good to include some of the neurodegenerative diseases addressed in the article in the Introduction so that that the reader will have an even better idea of what the article will address. Also, I think that you should maybe change your word choice in the Senescence section for “interestingly” so that it fits in with Wikipedia’s neutrality. Finally, I think it would be good if you added a See also or Further Reading section at the end of your article to enhance the Wikipedia format of the article even more. Great article overall! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tas45 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Once hyperlinks for a specific term were added to the article they were left out when they were later repeated. Hypertension and stroke and linked in the senescence section, for example, so they were not linked in the causes and symptoms section right after. Re-linking words may be helpful, especially if someone has skipped down to read only one section. We will add links to words that are used multiple times and look for other terms that have no links and might need them. The wording of the senescence section was changed to make it more neutral. Thanks for your help! Horowitr (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys overall great job. I have to agree with the previous posters that the breakdown was very conducive to understanding this. You included a good graphic. Also, you start with the basics and get more specific, which is good for people with any level of a background. I really liked the area where you state that the BBB tends to be oversimplified to just the astrocytes but it is actually more than that. This really made your topic important and placed it in a context. My only pseudo-suggestion would be to just try to find even more clinical applications and current research. You already did an extensive job covering this, but given that these spaces could possibly be part of the cause of these diseases its just pretty interesting. Anyway, great article! Tyler8014 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments! We are currently attempting to expand our current research section and include information about clinical applications. Unfortunately, much of the research we have encountered about the potential connections between VRS and Alzheimer's, Multiple Sclerosis, and dementia have thus far only yielded correlations, not biological causes. If we do come across anything, however, we will be sure to include it! -Ldellostritto (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• We have added information to the Current Research section after finding additional articles. Thanks for the advice! -Reedich (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Edit

This is a very well written article. I like it how it was well organized into different categories so that it could be easily understood. The wording was perfect so that readers could understand this area of the brain. One thing I could think of to make this article better was by adding the definition to the illness you mentioned associated with this area of the brain in the anatomy section of the article. As a reader, I was interested in what these illnesses were. In order to do this, you can either hyperlink the illness to another wiki article, link it to other papers, or just write the definition of the illness on the article. In addition to this, I don't know if there was little information was available on how the VRS was linked to the current diseases, but if it possible, maybe you can add a little more information to the relationship between VRS and the diseases you mentioned. Overall this was a solid article. I can't wait to see the final product!

Bcneuro (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• We went back and linked the diseases in the Anatomy section to their corresponding Wikipedia pages. For the final product, we will see if it's possible to find more information about the relationship between VRS and the illnesses we discuss in the Current Research section. So far, we have added information from a study linking dilated VRS and vascular dementia. Thanks for your help! -Reedich (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys! I feel like this article was very well thought out in terms of the layout. You seem to cover all major points integral to the description of Virchow-Robin spaces. So overall great job so far with the article! However I definitely feel like there are some places where you can expand certain sections. The history section seems a bit archaic since the latest you go is 1865. Perhaps you guys could do a bit more and add some information that was found in the 20th century. The anatomy and function sections are very well written, great job on those. The clinical significance is really the densest part of the article that enjoyed the most. My one suggestion is that you guys add how the space dilates at a molecular level and what mechanisms are involved. Lastly, I felt like more could be added to current research. I found this article regarding the spaces linked to brain trauma. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403696 . Also try and find more about the implication of these spaces in the diseases you have mentioned, I feel that there could be more. Overall great job hope to see the finished product! Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)BCayman1992

• Thanks for reviewing our article! We are currently working on looking for more recent history. I am glad that you enjoyed the clinical significance section. As far as the article you found, it does not have a free full text available. We will look into the brain trauma further and try to fill out our current research section more. Thanks again for all of your input! Kniemeyer (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• The history section was expanded to go beyond the initial discovery of VRS as technology progressed. This created a nice transition into the rest of the article. Thanks for the advice! Horowitr (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! First off, great article. I really like the image too, since it fits your article perfectly. I have some minor suggestions as well. The diseases you list under the anatomy section could all use some hyperlinks. There are extensive articles on some of the diseases listed, especially multiple sclerosis. It gives the reader the option to learn more outside your article. In addition, I suggest changing your heading, "Signs and Symptoms" under clinical significance. The title threw me off because VR spaces is not a disease. You could put "Dilation" under "Clinical Significance" and then have subsections under "Dilation," including "General Information" and "Causes." Finally, you can place a lot more hyperlinks in the article. But even without all the hyperlinks, I was able to comprehend the article easily without having to click hyperlinks all the time. Great job! SKChan903 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• We added hyperlinks to the diseases in the Anatomy section so that the reader can move to these pages to learn more about these illnesses. We will work on the organization of the article so that Virchow-Robin spaces do not appear as a disease at first glance. Thanks for your advice! -Reedich (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is very organized and well thought out. The history section definitely provided a unique take to the subject and helped me as a reader gain a better understanding of how such spaces came about. The clinical significance and function sections were both incredibly strong because they were very informative and easy to understand. As far as some things to improve, perhaps it would be beneficial to the article to try and find the biological mechanism for how such spaces are affected by each disease or disorder. This will help boost the information to the reader and possibly point them in the right direction if they need to learn more about the topic. Overall, excellent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisCS13 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! We are in the process of improving our clinical research section. However, the biological mechanisms of how the spaces are affected by each diseases are for the most part unknown. So far, much research has focused on finding statistical correlations between the enlargement and presence of the disease. That was a good suggestion, though; we wish we could include that information! Kniemeyer (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Since only a web search was asserted, due diligence forced me to check myself for preponderance in reliable English language sources by a method that tends to concentrate them, and it does appear that i) the terms are synonymous, and ii) that perivascular space is a far more common name for the topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Virchow–Robin space → Perivascular space – More descriptive name, far more widely used, Google hits for Virchow-Robin space 32K, for Perivascular space 370K, ncbi refs completely favour new name Iztwoz (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per stated rationale. New name is additionally much more descriptive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Peer comment -- VRS not defined, but used through out

It looks like this article hasn't been updated for some time. And while the title was changed to the more common "perivascular"- rather than "Virchow-Robin"- space, the bulk of the article still refers in several places to VRS, yet VRS is never defined. I would suggest PVS and VRS are defined early on and PVS used consistently through-out (when not referring directly to the alternate Virchow-Robin naming). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.224.199 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, 67.171.224.199. We are a website entirely based on the contributions of volunteers, so I encourage you to make whatever edits you'd like that you think may improve the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)