Talk:Signs and symptoms

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requesting input on stub proposal: Pathology-stub

Hi all. I've proposed a new stub, {{Pathology-stub}}, to mark the many proto-articles on topics related to Pathology - including various tools and techniques of pathologists, subdisciplines of pathology, and microscopic entities which are part of disease processes and are used by pathologists in diagnosis. In assembling the items that would be appropriate for the stub, I found that some of them had been labeled as medical signs, and marked with {{Med-sign-stub}}, under the broad definition that anything which is detectable and relates to a disease is a "medical sign". I've noticed that both broad and narrow definitions of "medical sign" are used on this page. In my experience, eponymous medical signs and other medical entities specifically referred to as "signs" are concepts which refer primarily to a appearance or observation rather than to a physical entity which is part of the disease process itself. Thus, observations made on physical examination (e.g. strawberry tongue) or radiographic study (e.g. Kerley B lines) are "medical signs" but entities such as fibrosis, astrogliosis, and auer rods mary are not (even though they can be microscopically "observed" for diagnosis), and these would be appropriate for my new stub & category. Whether you support or oppose my idea, I'd appreciate your joining the conversation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A sign is a...sign"

The article begins: "A medical sign is an objective indication of a sign or characteristic..." How can we rewrite this to be less tautological? Silv the Something (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for the heads up.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Cardinal sign (pathology) into Medical sign

Small page covered somewhat on target page - better target Iztwoz (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Infobox

Seems totally out of place to be labelled Semiotics. First section headed semiotics states that it was once used but now used for sign communication.?--Iztwoz (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and changed it.--Iztwoz (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms

Is there a reason for the separate pages? Mostly these are referred to as such and used interchangeably in many cases. Both pages are quite small.--Iztwoz (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medical sign → Signs and symptoms – It is so widely used to have them split seems pointless. Symptoms page would easily merge. Many websites refer to Signs and symptoms as do a number of wikipedia templates, and pages such as Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Iztwoz (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure I'm clear: You are suggesting that we change the name ("move") this page from "Medical sign" to "Signs and symptoms" and, also, merge Symptom into the "Signs and symptoms" article. If that is correct, I support your suggestion for the reasons you stated, and because it's best to understand the two terms in contrast to each other, as opposed to reading about them in isolation. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Yes that's exactly the suggestion. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The proposed move makes a lot of sense. We also have precedent with similar articles (Sensitivity and specificity, Positive and negative predictive values) where it makes more sense to have two related ideas in the same article. I fully agree that (1) having signs and symptoms together is logical, easier to read and easier to understand (2) referring to them together is common practice on Wikipedia and elsewhere (3) "Signs and symptoms" [as compared with "symptoms and signs"] is the common phrasing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2021 (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.

Caption of the image is wrong/misleading

The caption should say "features" as opposed as to the current "symptoms" since 90% of the features in the graphic are SIGNS, not symptoms. The latter are subjective features as expressed by the patient that are NOT observable by another subject. Feeling hot is a symptom. Measuring a temperature is a sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjalexander (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syndrome section goes against most accepted definitions

Briefly a A syndrome is a recurring cluster of signs/symptoms co-occurring and a disease is a syndrome for which the causes (etiology) are identified.

This is agreed by on many sources including the wikipedia page on Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndrome

The current text under the Syndrome heading is not aligned with this definition and the examples it gives are quite confusing and arise from the fact that in the common use of these words, even in medical literature, these are used very often interchangeably as synonyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjalexander (talk • contribs) 19:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissist 63.142.109.115 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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