Talk:Pneumonia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:57, 10 December 2020 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,348 editsm Signing comment by 2A00:A200:0:80D:49A6:3CCE:F7CB:95CA - "→Please harmonize the internal contradiction about the cause of pneumonia: new section"← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:10, 10 December 2020 edit undo2a00:a200:0:80d:49a6:3cce:f7cb:95ca (talk) →Please harmonize the internal contradiction about the cause of pneumonia Next edit →
Line 111:		Line 111:
	== Please harmonize the internal contradiction about the cause of pneumonia ==		== Please harmonize the internal contradiction about the cause of pneumonia ==

	In the '''Cause''' section you cite , a paper which puts viruses well ahead of bacteria in causing pneumonia. Later, in the '''Bacteria''' section you state that "Bacteria are the most common cause" with a different reference (#35 Sharma 2007), putting a direct contradiction into this article, just a few lines apart. It's also problematic that the latter is just a review pointing somewhere else - like in the children's telephone game. The former reference is better and an actual research publication. It would be great if somebody rewrote both section to remove or qualify this contradiction and make the article better. JS ~~<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->~~		In the '''Cause''' section you cite , a paper which puts viruses well ahead of bacteria in causing pneumonia. Later, in the '''Bacteria''' section you state that "Bacteria are the most common cause" with a different reference (#35 Sharma 2007), putting a direct contradiction into this article, just a few lines apart. It's also problematic that the latter is just a review pointing somewhere else - like in the children's telephone game. The former reference is better and an actual research publication. It would be great if somebody rewrote both section to remove or qualify this contradiction and make the article better. JS

			PS: Just as in the telephone game the numbers have been misquoted. It says "20% haemophilus" but it was 20 cases or 7% in the original paper!

Revision as of 17:10, 10 December 2020

Template:Vital article

Pneumonia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Pneumonia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 19, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
November 9, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
November 19, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
November 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Translation / Pulmonology Top‑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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Misplaced Pages's best articles related to Medicine.
	This article is currently the Medicine Collaboration of the Month.

Template:WP1.0

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pneumonia.

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

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:

Julie A McDougal (2007), Diseases and Disorders, Marshall Cavendish

Additional comments
Extensive copy and pastes of large sections of Misplaced Pages without appropriate attribution or release under the appropriate license.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Edit protection removal request

I would request a removal of edit protection in order to correct the links on pertussis, varicella, and measles to link to their actual pages, not the pages for their vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.24.34 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proportions don't add up.

The proportion of cases in the Bacteria and Virus sections are inconsistent and/or dont't add up. Together, they amount to more than 100%. It appears that the proportions recited in the Bacteria section are the proportions of bacterial-pneumonia cases, whereas the proportions in the Virus section are the proportions of total pneumonia cases. The breakdown by adult and children in the Virus section, without a percent value for total virus cases, adds to the confusion. Could someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:94B7:3C9C:9A:315F (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Links about Coronavirus as cause

at link 11 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21435708/

It says that infections comes together bacterial and viral. But on virus infection, it gives feel like, viruses can cause pneumonia.

"Dual viral infections are common, and a third of children have evidence of viral-bacterial co-infection. In adults, viruses are the putative causative agents in a third of cases of community-acquired pneumonia, in particular influenza viruses, rhinoviruses, and coronaviruses. Bacteria continue to have a predominant role in adults with pneumonia."

On page, there are no clear understanding of a thing. The last sentence says, the bacterial infections are dominant.

Nowdays, because of "corona pandemic" maybe not. I tend not to believe for governments, because of lack pictures of the virus in public domain. Today EM microscopes can easily make resolution of 0.1 nm, what about some virus that 100 nm?

It should be checked twice links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:198:313F:9495:E07C:68C3:D47D (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but bacteria are the most common cause of Pneumonia in general. In infants and toddlers, RSV is generally the most common cause. The link you provided isn't contradicting itself. Dual infections often happen with viral infections leading to a bacterial infection as well. I'm not sure if that is what you are confused about? Battykin (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Necrotizing pneumonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Necrotizing pneumonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Limitations on diagnosis

Mikalra added the Jain 2015 NEJM study which showed the limitations of advanced diagnostics in determining the aetiology of CAP (doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1500245). This study, while groundbreaking, does not comply with WP:MEDRS. Currently the observation on this problem is cited in the body of the article to a source called EBMED05, which is now 15 years old and should be updated in line with MEDRS.

Oddly the updated ATS guideline does not discuss the poor yield of investigations, but the Jain study is cited in doi:10.1097/MCP.0000000000000671. I'm sure this would be a good alternative to EBMED05 for this information as well as some other bits. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This study didn't use 'advanced diagnostics,' but routine laboratory diagnostics such as PCR and urinary antigen testing. You're right that "the observation on this problem is cited in the body of the article to a source called EBMED05;" the Jain study is an example of that problem and is a large and relatively recent report in institutions equipped to address the question.Mikalra (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

For many healthcare settings, the diagnostics used in Jain2015 were definitely "advanced". In the UK the viral PCR panel in pneumonia only includes influenza and RSV unless the host is immunocompromised. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mikalra: The Jain 2015 reference is not an appropriate source, so it has been removed again. Please review WP:MEDRS for explanation. JFW | T@lk 11:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to enhance this page's coverage of the robustly established relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and pneumonia.

Change "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can also result in pneumonia."

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can also result in pneumonia. The virus infects and destroys the cells of the alveoli, both those that are ciliated and those that produce mucus and surfactant . Because the cilia cannot function properly, fluid and cellular debris accumulate in the alveoli, which can cause pneumonia . Teddymhill (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This can only be supported with very high quality references. A newspaper article would not be sufficient, nor an animal study. The pathogenesis is probably more complicated than you have indicated: there is diffuse alveolar damage and immunothrombosis. Hence not supporting this addition at this time. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Please harmonize the internal contradiction about the cause of pneumonia

In the Cause section you cite #28 Jain 2015, a paper which puts viruses well ahead of bacteria in causing pneumonia. Later, in the Bacteria section you state that "Bacteria are the most common cause" with a different reference (#35 Sharma 2007), putting a direct contradiction into this article, just a few lines apart. It's also problematic that the latter is just a review pointing somewhere else - like in the children's telephone game. The former reference is better and an actual research publication. It would be great if somebody rewrote both section to remove or qualify this contradiction and make the article better. JS

PS: Just as in the telephone game the numbers have been misquoted. It says "20% haemophilus" but it was 20 cases or 7% in the original paper!

Categories: