Talk:Bristol stool scale

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image

I changed the image to one of my own creation, I feel it is easier to read than the old image and is .png format rather than .jpg which is better for text. As I created this file for the article Bristol Stool Chart rhather than this one, I may update it to say ... Scale rather than ... Chart to avoid confiusion. kylet 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, it looks much neater now! PiffPuffPickle 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both the old image and the new one look like feces.
Well, they would. kylet 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's right. They're absolute crap.

I use this in caring for people with severe phsical handicaps and mental impairments; I've always liked being able to say that I know my maneur. Is their any relationship between the Bristol scale and the old Chinese use of faeces in medical analysis? Grant McKenna 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, since it was created so recently I'm fairly sure it was based almost entirely on western medicine. Arthur the Panther (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is "Da Feces!"§


  • I Changed the picture, so it has the better pics, but the words are still nice and neat and clean.


I know it's a serious medical chart and all, but the first time I saw that chart, I thought it was a joke. Like something you'd see on a humor site. fuzzybunny566 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is honestly the funniest article on Wikipedia.68.227.177.91 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have just come out of hospital and can confirm that both the article and the image are genuine. Of course, I can still joke about it - type 4 takes care of the Cumberland Ring, for example, but how do you describe a Walnut Whip (with and without the walnut)?

Bot removal of pic

Make the bot put the pic back. It helps the article a lot. Buttboy666 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a subject for debate and I'm glad it was addressed by Buttboy at least. There's not a lot of people up for discussing this kind of crap. --Randall00 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


names

Do these seven types of feces have technical names like clouds do? Totnesmartin 21:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no, only the number is generally used in the medical profession. Buttboy666 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel some Original Research coming on... :) but this isn't the place :( Totnesmartin 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go in there; I just dropped a wicked Pileus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.214.182.23 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I just pooped a Columbus! RealKG1990 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar feces..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.74.130 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical names: The nutty one is Trig. The lumpy one is Willow...03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)68.0.119.139 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the paediatric version Sharkli (talk - contribs) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

The picture and the list only have seven types, but the text below the list refers to eight types...

clearly you people don't have enough CRAP to do 198.178.191.2 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Types of feces depending on health state

The article says that the different types of maneur are influenced by your current health state. But, it doesnt even list or give examples of what may influence each type. For example, eating something nasty or unhealthy may cause you to have type 5-7.. it would also be helpful to know why. Another example, is young children having type 1 because theyre systems are very healthy and clean. Simply, list what things can cause or influence the different types of maneur. PitchBlack 17:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are so many conditions and drugs and situations that can have so many different kinds of effects on bowel movements that you should probably read the article for the condition you are curious about. The purpose of the Bristol Stool Scale is to classify feces based on form, not cause, and this article correctly reflects that purpose. --69.112.246.174 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a methadone rehab and amongst us our #2 is invariably #1 . . . what we commonly called junkie or bee-bee poop. It often comes in grape-like clusters that are extremely painful to pass. So, if you've never experienced #1, now you know how to get it. ANOTHER THING . . . I was thinking there should be a supplementary chart on the COLOR . . . perhaps even the ODOR of feces described. I think this would have wonderful benefits for science and mankind everglorious. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR. WLU (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
colour of stool is a diagnostic criterion. black stools indicate severe bleeding in the upper digestive tract (or the swallowing of blood, from epistaxis (nosebleed) for example).black stools can also be caused by bismuth subsalicylate, the active ingredient in pepto-bismol. light or grey (acholic) stools often accompany jaundice, and indicate obstruction of bile outflow.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR, but black stools may also be caused by drinking a lot of Guinness. On my first visit to Dublin, I was a little concerned until the penny dropped. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.227 (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joke?

Is this a serious article? Please tell me it's a joke! Wobuzowatsj (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's a couple of references. It's legit. WLU (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally serious. I used to work in the colorectal ward of a hospital and this type of poster used to be on the wall, although I was under the impression that type 5 was considered "ideal" (not type 3-4) - this may have been for patients fitted with a stoma, however.... Paul-b4 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one webpage where this guy was trying to sell his own laxatives discussed how ideal was based upon what one thought as a stool one did not have to strain to pass. So it becomes different for everyone. Here is the link to that site http://www.fibermenace.com/gutsense/transition.html . Can anyone find a better source for the information? Teplitskya1 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Type 5 is awful. Something like 2.5 would be ideal. From best to worst: 3, 2, 4, 1, 5, 6, 7 50.89.71.42 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... This has to be a (somewhat funny, but still infinitely juvenile) joke. I don't care how serious this Bristol person was, no self-respecting human being can take this page at face value. Instead of having its own page, can it (in its entirety) be merged into a more serious Wikipedia page? One that won't make five year-olds giggle and point at the chart?AzureATC (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links

The second link [1] is broken. Some alternatives include [2], [3]. There are about 12,000 hits for this on the Internet and yes, it is a serious and useful classification, which an MD referred me to. Scatology isn't always synonymous with humour. TerryE (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Unfortunately a large number of anonymous users seem to think so and vandalise it regularly.
I have replaced the broken link with your excellent second suggestion, since the background of the first seems to be a bit off the medical mainstream. Thanks a lot for your help! --Hans Adler (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designed to estimate transit itme only

I just modified the opening paragraph to correct what I perceived to be a misstatement of the Bristol Stool Scale's intended purpose. It was proposed as a way of estimating transit time, and nothing else. The original paper cited in this article addresses only that use. It's not a very reliable instrument for that use, and the original paper (as a primary source) doesn't say that. That's why I cited the review (a secondary source), which mentions two studies that challenge its usefulness as an indicator of transit time. I removed the lines about other variables being able to change stool form because it was the authors' contention that, regardless of cause, stool form could predict transit time. (I.e., diarrhea, regardless of its pathogenesis, is the result of rapid transit through the colon.)

However, as a research tool the BSS is still in widespread use, not only because it gives a common language to describe stool forms, but also it provides a means of converting qualitative data (i.e., what does the turd look like?) into quantitative data. Unfortunately I don't have a citation for that. But if you look through PubMed you'll find lots of articles in which the investigators use the BSS as a dependent variable. Dcs002 (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this would probably be a good citation, but I can only read the abstract, though the abstract names it as a useful diagnostic tool:
What is necessary to diagnose constipation?
Rao SS, Meduri K.
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 Feb;25(1):127-40. Review.
PMID 21382584
Dcs002 (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Bristol Stool Scale → Bristol stool scale –

Commonly downcased in the academic literature. Examples:

scale) ..."]

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per relevant academic literature. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per arguments above. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The article was moved back to its capitalised title without explanation here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 10:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the wrong capitalisation was used! I've placed a {{db-move}} tag at Bristol stool scale. -- Trevj (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Meyers" scale

Some explanation of why it's sometimes called the Meyers scale in the UK would be useful. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who calls it a Meyers scale? I've never heard of that. kylet (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Google finds a few references, but they all sound suspiciously like they're copying WP - where the name was added on 17 January 2009‎ by an anon 78.105.245.116 - my guess is as a joke.. (So I've now removed reference to this name) Snori (talk)

Copyright issues.

I've been contacted by the Rome Foundation about the bristol stool chart images I created. I made them in 2006 with the intention of creating copyright-free imagery, but in 2011 Dr Heaton, one of the originators of the chart gave his copyright to the Rome Foundation. They do not wish it to be used, it seems. I tried to delete it but someone undid the revision. Could you help me remove the images from this article and wikimedia commons? kylet (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit request

Hi - as the article is locked please could someone with access make a minor copy edit in respect of ‘Dr. Stephen Lewis and Dr. Ken Heaton’ as:

  • As per MoS such honorific titles should not be included.
  • Even if the honorific titles are included the punctuation is currently incorrect as they’re written as ‘Dr.’ rather than ‘Dr’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.181.60 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim of "Diagnosis of IBS"?

This seems very excessive - with a lot of the content not at all related to this article. Thoughts, defence? Expect me to radically trim this shortly. - Snori (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

poop

funny poop 2601:89:C500:A000:287F:2129:47F6:5C53 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bristol_stool_scale"