Talk:Pneumonia: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:22, 5 April 2020 editBender235 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors471,654 edits →top ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:14, 13 April 2020 edit undo2a00:a040:198:313f:9495:e07c:68c3:d47d (talk) Virus infection section doesn't meet the source article. It give fake information.Next edit →
Line 65:		Line 65:

	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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== 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.

Revision as of 02:14, 13 April 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

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

2405:204:71C5:CBC:0:0:26E1:80A0 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

Categories: