Talk:Disseminated intravascular coagulation

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pathophysiology

Including the whole coagulation pathway seems excessive. Maybe a link to the Wiki coagulation page would be better?Markchen001 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Paragraph Analysis, Criticisms, and Conclusions: A Tale of An Editor and the Article He Failed to Edit Properly

Perhaps think about breaking up the intro paragraph into a few smaller paragraphs and adding some information on prevalence, etc. Preston.atteberry (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We

We should discuss the two main scoring systems (JMHW and ISTH), and the newer JAAM as compared in PMID 16521260. JFW | T@lk 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 15599145 validates the ISTH score. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumptive Coagulopathy

There should be a redirect from "Consumptive Coagulopathy" as well. Thanks. (It's the older term)

Done. --David Iberri (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIC, "death is coming"

As a layman looking for information about the condition diagnosed in a loved relative I found the final remark of the article crass and gratuitous. The fact that it is a referenced citation does not excuse its similarity to macabre med school humor; the remark is out of place in an article looking to improve its quality and in a reference as useful as Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.0.173.73 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This acronym is designated as "death is coming" by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS because this particular pathology is usually preceeded by great trauma, infection, etc. and it can only be treated by fixing the underlying cause. If the underlying cause were easily treatable, this condition, essentially would rarely/not exist. DIC is commonly the precurssor if not the cause of death, and why it is assigned the morbid moniker. ~J. Petersen

Please do not delete other people's comments when you add your own. I have restored what you deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first comment above. This is not a univerally applied term and could be construed as offensive by those outside the medical community who may not appreciate the less than subtle black humour of doctors. Also, it should be qualified by providing at least broad actual mortality statistics. As it stands it gives no helpful information. Would it also be appropriate to mention the acronym FLK in the page on dysmorphic features just because someone thinks it's funny? Without qualification, I think it's inappropriate. gearoidmm (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that with treatment, only two out of three patients die, but I don't have a source for that. The underlying condition also matters: it's different for, say, pregnancy than for trauma or advanced malignancies.
FLK, by the way, uses the word funny in the sense of "strange" (like, "That's funny, I was sure I'd put my wallet in my pocket, but I can't find it now"), not in the sense of laughing at someone. Suggesting that it was intended to be humorous isn't really supportable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two review articles which were published in Critical Care in the past 10 years regarding DIC and they give a very nice summary of current understanding. They suggest a mortality rate of 25-40% in patients with DIC and severe sepsis. They also point out the fact that mortality rates have improveed with the use of APC. (PMID 11007192, PMID 17855836). I think it would be good to say that as in its current form the article might suggest much higher death rates to the layman. I can't edit it myself. gearoidmm (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mom just died of DIC+sepsis. I was told by the chief of cardiologists of the hospital (and also a relative of mine) that in that condition the mortality rate was 99%, and she hasn't seen any recovery. Equinoxe 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the epidemiology section needs some major work. The most common cause of DIC by far is infectious etiologies, followed by malignancy and surgery. Obstetrical causes are much less common. The article should discuss and expand upon gram negative and gram positive infections, as opposed to the way it is structured now. 152.130.7.131 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins 7th ed. disagrees, listing obstetric complications (previa, am. emboli, fetal mixing, frank hemorrhage) as ~50% of causes, although they do note OB DIC as typically less severe when compared to infectious DIC. Perhaps recent, high quality epidemiological studies may show the trend you describe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.32 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis

Why don't you write a new prognosis section here? If your account hasn't been autoconfirmed by the time you're done, I'll add it to the article for you. I'd love to have the current information in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks wikipedia! Now i know how to commit a perfect murder! Thank you so much!64.105.22.122 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do us a favor, start with yourself, ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.125.26 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

Thank you to the recent editors who have substantially expanded this article. You might want to have a look at both WP:MOS for general stylistic information, such as the strong preference for avoiding numbered lists, and WP:MEDMOS for information specific to medicine-related articles, such as the suggested order of sections for diseases like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Named refs

I have named the duplicated refs for ease of re-using the same source. The only downside is that it doesn't handle changing page numbers, so those have to remain separate. This tool is very handy for creating standardized reference templates for any article that has a PMID or ISBN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sepsis

I have added gram-positive sepsis to the list of possible causes, based on one source: [1] I have no idea whether this is correct or not, or whether it is already included in the list in the article, though. I also added "viral infection" as a possible cause. If this is incorrect, then please revert me! 74.96.75.230 (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria/guidance

SSC from ISTH has published this: doi:10.1111/jth.12155 - probably ought to be mentioned somewhere. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To anticoagulate? Japanese view

doi:10.1111/jth.12596 - review JFW | T@lk 13:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent secondary sources

Princeton wu‎ has kindly started to expand the article with some great sources in the engine room. A quick look on Pubmed shows that there's quite a bit of recent writing on the subject. Of course ISTH guidance should be cited prominently.

I might help out a bit, depending on how busy my week gets. JFW | T@lk 06:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks JFW. (I'm sort of new to editing so I'm not sure if I should reply here). If time allows, I may do some updates here and there. Princeton wu (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our institution unfortunately does not have access to PMID 23015284 (general review by Levi) Princeton wu (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 Vaccine

Not sure if there is any citation for the claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause DIC...62.254.111.116 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now. I agree I would need to see some very strong sourcing before including it in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who approved this article description?

It looks very out of place compared to the rest of the article and article descriptions in general. 64.147.197.167 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is out of place at least in part due to not having a neutral, encyclopedic tone (and the grammar/spelling doesn't help). I have changed it to something I find more acceptable. If there is another version you'd like to see instead of what I've put in, feel free to change it how you see fit. Kimen8 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Disseminated_intravascular_coagulation"