Talk:Cholecystitis

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AVinson11. Peer reviewers: CoolGuy555.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Hi,

I edited this page. I am new in Wikipedia and new with its rules. I am not sure what shall I edit here. Q. Should there be Exact/Correct/Clear and detail information in Encyclopedia? Q. And How much infomation should it be here for non medical field related presonalls or for sufferer?

P.S: 1. What is this "perforation" and "rupture" here. 2. Are they synonymous?

Thank you. Bye!

Hello,

Your first question about detail information is pretty vague; I'm not sure what you're asking about specifically.

Perforation infers a breakage in the endothelial lining, either via a gallstone or by instruments during (endoscopic) surgery, while rupture infers that the bladder has broken apart either via physical trauma, tear of weakened tissue or by excess intraluminal pressure. They essentially describe the same thing, with different causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratznium (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Review

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/26/2804

Calculous cholecystitis only (90% of cases). JFW | T@lk 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does +/- mean?

I'm not a doctor; what does this mean:

"tender right upper quadrant +/- Murphy's sign"

Should this (+/-) be changed to layman's speak?

207.171.191.60 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+/- means with or without, I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.104.50.91 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Georgievskiy — Myussi's sign actually exist. I can find no reference to it except various web pages and every single listing when googled contains the exact same phrase. If it is not an officially recognized eponym, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.174.70 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too doctor oriented

If I were to edit this page, I'd take out the differential diagnosis stuff. If you're actually qualified to do medical diagnosis, I would hope you rely o something more authoritative than Wikipedia for this sort of thing. And if (like most of us) you're not qualified it's not stuff you want to know. What you do want to know is how the condition is normally treated. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback

To whomever reads, I am looking for feedback regarding the readability of the article. Is it more lay-person friendly now? Does the organization make sense? Would you recommend heading and subheadings to be any different or in a different order? I have edited most sections but have not yet edited the lead or the management sections. Thanks! (User talk:wwtele)

Peer Review

The page looks great, good job editing! A few points that I would offer:

The lead: I think there are areas that you may consider simplifying for the common audience. “obstruction” = block, “accumulation” = build up. I think it is great that you say “not everyone who has gallstones will go on to develop cholecystitis” as this is important for the public to avoid this common confusion of the two conditions. After the mention of complications: “uncomplicated cholecystitis has an excellent prognosis...” I would add briefly what it means to be have complicated cholecystitis so the reader doesn't have to go looking in the article if they don't want to.

I like the image of the micrograph, but I am wondering if the lead image should be something more comprehensible/meaningful to the general public. Perhaps a gross image of an inflamed gall bladder?

I like the outline, it works well with the article/subject. The only thing I would add is maybe the “alternative diagnosis” section should be next to or a subsection of “diagnosis”? It also works the way you have it, just a thought. Also, maybe the management section should have some subheadings for easier navigation.

I would respectfully disagree with the user that said the differential diagnosis is not important. I would think that the lay public would want to know what else could be going on if they think they have cholecystitis.

One of the hardest thing I have found in editing Wikipedia is minimizing 'medical-ese' and keeping things in basic terms. Overall the readability id good, but there are still a few areas I think that could be edited to more common language, for example: “Upon palpation, the gallbladder is almost always tender to touch and may be palpable in 25-50% of people with cholecystitis” = A gallbladder with cholecystitis is almost always tender to touch and, because of the inflammation, it's size can be felt from the outside of the body in 25-50% of people with cholecystitis.

Great images in the imaging and management sections! Excellent resources, you have a great number and high quality! Overall fantastic job, the article looks great and I am sure that the wiki community and users appreciate all the hard work you put into it! Dorafriedman (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback comments

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with everything you stated. I haven't touched the lead yet. I will work on it this week and try to make all the changes you suggested. I tried to find an open source photo of an inflamed gallbladder but couldn't find one. I instead put in a drawing of the gallbladder which I think is more useful that a histology slide. I put the alternative diagnoses in the diagnosis section. I haven't tackled the management section but agree it could be broken down a bit with sub headings Thanks for the help!

(talk)

Natural remedies

The 'Management' section says "Homeopathic approaches to treating cholecystitis have not been validated by evidence and should not be used in place of surgery." Should this sentence be broadened to include naturopathic remedies? I believe the most common natural treatment is a "gallbladder flush" involving consumption of some combination of oils, magnesium sulphate, lemon juice and apple juice. It's not technically homeopathic, but it's equally ineffective. 182.239.139.90 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Workplan For Edits to Article

Hi,

I am a medical student making edits to this article. I plan to improve the following items on this page:

  • Infobox: I plan to alter the infobox so that it contains data relevant to a lay reader in the style of the hepatitis article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis), replacing the reference numbers now present in the infobox.
Sure sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used the following template to replace the info box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_medical_condition_(new)/doc AVinson11 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And than we move the old details to the end of the article like I did here[1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortening the lede and converting as much medical jargon as possible to terms understandable to a lay-reader. For example, listing risk factors is not relevant to a casual reader and is discussed in causes. Saying something is "complicated by" a complication is not often understood by someone not in the medical field.
Per WP:LEAD we want the beginning of the article to be about 4 paragraphs. Risk factors are something that I believe is of interest to the casual reader. How would you explain "complications"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good on the lede. A complication is an understandable noun. The verb "to complicate" in the passive can be too easily misunderstood. So I would reword it to: may lead to complications such as...AVinson11 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewording of pathophysiology; perhaps more of an explanation of what causes the pain.
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better explanation of how the diagnosis is made--what is found on physical examination (Murphy's sign, tenderness, etc.)? Boas' sign seems to be thrown in there.
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing Differential Diagnosis section: I agree with a previous commenter that the differential diagnosis is unnecessary for medical readers and may serve only to freak out a lay reader. I am removing it.
While Wikipedia is for lay readers, it is not JUST for lay readers. IMO having the differential in the body of the text is fine as long as it is referenced. Sometimes what we think is cholecystitis is cholangitis or appendicitis and thus notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool sounds good.AVinson11 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "management" section to "Treatment."
Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removal of the history of treatment. Not relevant to this article that cholecystectomies used to be open. I condensed the reference to laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy. I will do additional cleaning up of the language here. It appears to contain too much jargon. Reference 29 apparently needs an update. The "other" subsection needs more citations and the language needs to be cleaned up.
Would be good to have a section on the history of the condition at the end of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The complications list appears redundant to the sections below it. I will add a section on Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses and remove the list afterward.
Redundant to what section below it? Often one gives an overview and then discusses the specific in greater detail below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my initial workplan. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for this article!

AVinson11 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Acalculous Cholecystitis section of Causes needs sourcing and further clean-up as well. I am writing this here as a reminder

AVinson11 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone through about half of the article, using acrolinx as a guide to simplify wording. I left off at the Treatment section.

AVinson11 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Other" section needs citations. I may incorporate this section into other parts of the article.

AVinson11 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional potential work

  • Some of the references in the body are needing further formating. For example some should be reformatted with {{cite book}} template.
  • We need a section called "epidemiology" in the body. This section should discussion the frequency of the condition and how it varies in different regions of the world if that data is avaliable. We also often discuss how age affects frequency and how ethnicity affect frequency in this section.
  • We give quantities in the body of the article (mg/dL) -> other units that are commonly used should also be provided.
  • Differential could be added to the infobox. What are the three most common / important differentials? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I really like how Drew treated the infobox, moving to the end of article the ICD number and other information that isn’t pertinent to lay readers. I think a lay reader looking at this article would really appreciate having information like “specialty, treatment, causes” right up at the top. Very nice.

In the first paragraph, the sentences drawing the distinction between biliary colic and cholecystitis read a little awkwardly and might be confusing. Maybe rephrasing it as “Acute cholecystitis is distinct from biliary colic in that…” could help to clear it up.

Nice organization of the lead, going from description of the disease to risk factors/causes to treatment to epidemiology. Very easy to follow. Solid citations.

Great use of the osmosis video!

A good job done avoiding unnecessary jargon in the signs and symptoms section. Once you get into the causes – especially acalculous cholecystits- it becomes pretty laden with jargon. While lay readers are much more likely to read the lead, which has great use of lay terminology, you could think about trying to make this section more accessible to non-medical professionals.

Nice differential, but not totally complete (gastritis? malignancy?). Did you think about organizing it from most to least common or something like that?

In general, it’s awesome to see Drew collaborating with Doc James in the talk page. Really great example of how Wikipedia is ideally supposed to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuy555 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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