Talk:Leukoplakia

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

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

Leukoplakia was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 8, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 May 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Leukoplakia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Dentistry Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Dermatology Mid‑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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

References

Someone added references to Willie Parker, so I undid it. -Love, some guy who was reading the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.12.70 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence

Leukoplakia affects less than one percent of the population, and is common in adults

I'm confused -- is that supposed to mean it's most common in adults, or is the statistic wrong? Dan 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, maybe that is not worded best, but basically it is found most commonly in adults (as opposed to children). - Dozenist talk 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir

HOw to improve from it.

Useful source

<ref name="Lodi 2006">{{cite journal|last=Lodi|first=G|coauthors=Sardella, A; Bez, C; Demarosi, F; Carrassi, A|title=Interventions for treating oral leukoplakia.|journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)|date=2006 Oct 18|issue=4|pages=CD001829|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001829.pub3|pmid=17054142|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001829.pub3/full}}</ref> Lesion (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC) <ref name="Arduino 2013">{{cite journal|last=Arduino|first=P|coauthors=Bagan, J; El-Naggar, A; Carrozzo, M|title=Urban legends series: oral leukoplakia.|journal=Oral diseases|date=2013 Jan 11|pmid=23379968}}</ref>[reply]

Issues following revisions

this article now nearly totally focuses on oral leukoplakia. A few sources (notably the ICD-10) state that leukoplakia can occur at other gastrointestinal mucosal sites, from oropharyngeal to anal mucosa, and also may occur on genital/urinary tract mucosae. It would be good to have sections on these other locations of leukoplakia in case of undue weight.
Acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia. Is this a real subtype of leukoplakia, or even a notable synonym to be included? I am not sure since there is only one pubmed result from 1988 [1], and no modern source has used that term that I have come across. It might be better to exclude it from the article entirely. I have also nominated that page for deletion on grounds of notablity, but again I am not 100% sure this is correct. Lesion (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

If there are any other editors interested in this page, here's where we're at. During the GAR, it was my opinion that the article covers leukoplakia as a sign/symptoms as a white patch (e.g. classificatin), as a disorder by delving into it's use as a synonym for dysplasia (histologic appearance) and discusses it's use as a diagnosis of exlusion (from the ICD-10). While the article is extremely well researched, it makes the topic confusing for an average reader imo. It was during the middle of this discussion that Lesion left Wikipedia. After researching the topic and speaking with 2 of the worlds experts, I believe the article needs to be split into 2. One, with leukoplakia as a sign/symtpoms (for white patch) where the different classes, differential diagnosis, etc... resides, and the second article for oral dysplasia where we can talk about causes, histologic appearance, prognosis, etc... If there's anyone that would like to discuss this, please let me know. Ian Furst (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work is progressing on splitting this article into two. I'm doing the initial work on my user page at User:Ian Furst/Dysplasia (mouth) and User:Ian Furst/leukoplakia sign if anyone is interested or would like to provide feedback. Once the basic outline is set, I'll be contacting the experts again for greater guidance. Ian Furst (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, nothing in the current article states that this condition is a sign (an abnormal feature elicited by a physician) or a by-word for dysplasia in the mouth. I checked a few of the references, that I could access, and the condition was not presented with the dichotomy suggested above, but rather as a single topic. You have to question whether such experts being consulted are giving a mainstream view, as represented by good references, or their own opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.85.252 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge leukoplakia with tylosis and esophageal carcinoma here?

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We also have a page about this rare association. I'm not sure whether it's notable enough for a separate page. Maybe better to merge the content here?

Leukoplakia of the esophagus may be a premalignant lesion [2], but I can't find any recent proposal for the association of leukoplakia with tylosis and esophageal carcinoma as a specific nosological entity.
86.157.144.73 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, given the full text reads "Leukoplakia with tylosis and esophageal carcinoma is a rare condition characterized by leukoplakia associated with esophageal carcinoma" (Executive summary: "It is what it is, and it's rare"). Wiki CRUK John/Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Actually, I don't even see any current scientific consensus that it is what is claimed (in contrast to tylosis with esophageal cancer). 86.157.144.73 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.157.144.73, we already mention this in the "leukoplakia" article. Apart from adding the detail that it is a rare condition, and maybe also transferring the 1 reference from "leukoplakia with tylosis and esophageal carcinoma", there is nothing else to take from the other one line article. 92.41.92.21 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, then what to do? Delete? Or maybe we could merge with tylosis with esophageal cancer by using the source on that page? 86.157.144.73 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know we had an article called "tylosis with esophageal cancer". Yes mayb e better to merge "leukoplakia with tylosis and esophageal carcinoma" there instead, as it is a more relevant topic (assume esophageal cancer is the most significant aspect of the "triad"), and also probably best to leave redirect so if anyone does use those search terms they will reach the page. 188.30.205.229 (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal (thanks guys!). 86.157.144.73 (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.