Talk:Tetanus

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 19 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkrop. Peer reviewers: DrScienceGuy, 10ebyu10e.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines and NPOV

"Even with treatment, about 10% of people who contract tetanus die.[1] The mortality rate is higher in unvaccinated people and people over 60 years of age.[1]". Is the writer saying that higher mortality in individual patients (not the lower frequency of infection) is caused by an absence of vaccinations? Why do previously vaccinated patients get tetanus anyway? Then, there is the source given: "Atkinson, William (May 2012). Tetanus Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (12 ed.)". There are a lot of problems with vaccines - which is why the ebola manufacturers demanded the passing of the PREP Act, which gives them legal immunity from prosecution in the United States. Merck vaccine researcher prof. dr. Maurice Hilleman stated that vaccines were the origin of various communicable diseases/epidemics, like SIV/HIV, SV40 and Leukemia Virus. So what's in the ebola vaccines, and what's in the tetanus vaccine? 83.84.100.133 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figure mismatches

The article say "often fatal" whilst the link (http://goldbamboo.com/topic-t2989.html) at the bottom says "sometimes". IMO that's a big difference, further the number of reported cases in the US is in the same link given as fewer 60 cases/yr, whilst the article says around 150 cases annually...

I don't know which is correct of the two...

--andreala 07 July 2005

Incubation period vs likelihood of death

From the article: Incubation period length and likelihood of death are inversely proportional. It took me quite a while to parse that sentence and I'm still not sure I have it right. Does it mean that a short incubation period means a large chance of death? Or a short incubation period means a long likelihood of living before death? Can someone who knows what this means please clarify it in the article? Richard W.M. Jones 23:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC) A similar comment appears under 'Tetanus Prognosis' of 'The Merck Manual 7th Edition' (page 1177). I think its saying if the symptoms develop quickly the illness will be more severe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart Anthony (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think you got it right...But a better prognostic index is the period of onset, which is the time between the first symptoms and the first reflex spasm.if this period has been less than 48hrs, death is very likely. As the period of onset lengthen so does the prognosis improve. Jogana4sure (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine inquiry

inquiry on tetanus vaccine. i was given tetanus toxoid and immunoglobin vax 4 mos ago. i would like to know the lenght or period of my immunity against tetanus for this vax

Doctors usually say that you should renew you tetanus vaccine every 5 to 10 years.

  • For adults, tetanus and diphtheria booster vaccination should be given every 10 years. However, if you suffer a deep wound - not just a scratch - and it has been more than 5 years since your last booster, you should get a booster within 48 hours. Just FYI, tetanus toxoid is the booster itself, and the immunoglobulin was to ward off the infection short-term because your physician felt you needed it. Immunoglobulin is not a part of a routine tetanus booster shot. I hope that helps. ddlamb 07:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous victims

list of famous people (such as john a roebling) who have died of this condition would be intresting - t ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.40.217 (talk • contribs) 4 January 2006

Done, but if there are any that are missing (that also either have a wikipedia bio or can be sourced) please feel free to add them.--DO11.10 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citatation

The statement "The risk from Tetanus, Diphtheria and Pertussis (whooping cough) is higher than the risk of vaccine side-affects" really needs a citation and preferably some supporting facts as well. There are a lot of different ways to calculate risks not to mention the fact that different countries would have different vaccine formulations.

Mystic eye 23:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some very scary stuff here brah The.Corrector. 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an irresponsible and highly misleading statement. You would have to compare deaths to the disease before and after immunisation was implemented, rather than just look at the mortality/morbidity now. I'm going to delete it because these sort of misleading statements need to be removed, before they mislead people, rather than wait for someone to cite a source. Serrin 23:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and POV statements in Prevention section

I've removed the following text from the Prevention section pending referencing of statements ("Some doctors", "acknowledged by experts") and other non sequiturs:

"Some doctors question whether vaccination prevents tetanus and is the reason for the low number of cases. This is because tetanus was a rare illness in the pre-vaccine era, and improved woundcare techniques is acknowledged by experts to be very important for the precipitous fall in rates from the late Victorian era through to the mid 20th century. Also according to blood surveys carried out by the CDC in the US about 30% of teens do not have protective antibody levels, as defined, and yet are not represented in the statistics. Of the on average 50 to 60 cases per year in the US, nearly all are aged over 50. It is theorised by skeptical doctors that this is due to low immunity in the aged, perhaps combined with poor nutrition. Many children are unvaccinated in the US, and yet they are not getting tetanus also."

Please discuss changes in this section of the talk page prior to re-addition. -- MarcoTolo 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All these claims look dubious, especially the following: Of the on average 50 to 60 cases per year in the US, nearly all are aged over 50.. In the medical literature, there are documented cases of tetanus among kids, teenagers and young adults in the US. In fact, according to these 1998-2000 figures, the highest incidence is in the "30-39 years old" age group. Complete reference. -- Hugo Dufort 19:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a link to anti-vaccine website "Vaccine Truth"?

There is a link to an "information" page located on the vaccinetruth.org website. This website is a strong anti-vaccine advocate and states on its home page that "vaccines don't work". They rather propose homeopathy as an alternative (!) Are we certain we want to provide this kind of information to the readers? It would be more careful, if we really wish to provide a link to an anti-vaccine website, to give a warning of a side note. The claim "vaccines don't work" is misleading and outrageous. I have been to countries where people catch polio, tetanus and other diseases. The equation is simple: as soon as there is a polio vaccination drive, a whole generation of toddlers is totally protected against the disease, and they don't get sick. As soon as the vaccination drive stops temporarily, new cases pop up. If vaccines "don't work" as claimed on this counter-scientific site, how do they explain that correlation? Hugo Dufort 19:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you don't even need to go that far, my argument is that since this article is not about the tetanus vaccine, it should not include links to sites specifically about the vaccine. These would be more relevant in the DPT vaccine article. Hence, I have removed the link, among several other fixes.--DO11.10 06:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

complicated language

it would be good if simpler words were used to make this passage clearer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.109.164.83 (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.57.143 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you need simple english, use the simple english language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyodo (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked?

Under treatment for mld tetanus, is says: 'Tetanus is definately (sic) fatal dude'

I haven't heard of that treatment before!

TC, London —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.76.250 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Time limit to get the vaccination after puncture wound

How soon do you need to get vaccinated after getting a puncture wound for it to be effective against tetanus resulting from that wound? Ron Duvall (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know this too. Very handy info. 89.241.164.39 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyodo (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate definition of tetanus

In addition to the disease, tetanus can also refer to a prolonged contraction of a muscle resulting from rapidly repeated motor impulses (according to Merriam-Webster) which is a normal, healthy occurence. If you check in the Wikipedia stub titled "Tetanized State" you'll see that when it refers to tetanus it's referring to the normal, non-disease tetanus but it's linked to this article on the disease. I'm just not sure how to correct this article to clarify the alternate definition. Maybe create a completely separate article on the other tetanus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.156.57 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neonatal Tetanus and immunization

Sign and Symptoms: "Neonatal tetanus is a form of generalized tetanus that occurs in newborn infants. It occurs in infants who have not acquired passive immunity because the mother has never been immunized."

That second sentence might not be true (see http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/10/1365). What is the source for the implication that immunization before pregnancy passes immunity to a later child? Merke Manual 7th Ed. page 1177 states immunizing of a pregnant woman produces immunity in her fetus, but nothing more. Should it read "...because the mother has never been immunized when she was pregnant"? Stuart Anthony (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article photo of tetanus patient should include a censorship disclaimer

The most likely reason for the photograph being censored is to protect patient confidentiality, however it could also be surmised that there is something unusual and disturbing about the eyes of the patient.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that the censorship block does not extend across the width of the face, but is in two separate blocks, one for each eye (this is a highly unusual technique for masking identity, and more commonly used for censoring something which may be considered "offensive", although of course Wikipedia articles are not usually censored for such reasons).

I think it would be a good idea to include a mention in the caption of the photograph stating the reason for the censorship (eg. to protect the identity of the individual), so that there is no confusion.

Nevart (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC) N[reply]

Cause

The cause of tetanus should be added to the lead.

I would but I don't know it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitsuneDragonRA (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the Causes section "Hence, stepping on a nail (rusty or not) may result in a tetanus infection, as the low-oxygen (anaerobic) environment is caused by the oxidization of the same object that causes a puncture wound, delivering endospores to a suitable environment for growth." Particularly the phrase "the low-oxygen (anaerobic) environment is caused by the oxidization of the same object that causes a puncture wound." Since the nail is what causes the puncture wound, this therefore says that the nail causes a low-oxygen environment. This brings up the question: how does the presence of an occasional nail, in soil, cause a low-oxygen environment? By using up oxygen in the processing of oxidizing the iron (converting the iron to rust)? It would seem unlikely that the oxidation of an occasional nail, in a large area of soil, would effect the soil that surrounds it, or the soil that clings to it, so much, that formerly aerobic soil becomes anaerobic. Can someone explain this further? Nomenclator (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with the same paragraph. it says, (in a rather overcomplicated way) that the nail because it is oxidized itself is PROVIDING (and not causing) the relatively oxigen-free environment for the bacteria (eg: inside the layer of rust, or under the layer of rust), then when the nail punctures the skin the bacteria that is inside or under the rust gets inside the wound and some of it is very likely left inside the wound (with some rust and dirt together) when the nail is removed from the wound. There is still a contradiction in the quoted paragraph though, since it starts with saying, that the endospore is a form of the bacteria which went in a dormal state because it is not in a favorable environment (eg: it is not in an oxigen-free environment), then describes the rusty nail as an oxigen-free environment (which is - if true - not making the bacteria to go dormant in the endospore form) then ending with the statement that the nail injects the endospores into the wound when it puncures the skin. So it would be best to remove the speculation about the oxigen-free nature of the nail and concentrate on the following: 1-there are bacteria on the dirty or rusty nail (whether these are in "awake" or "dormant=endosperm" form, doesnt make a difference in this case), 2-the bacteria gets inside the wound from the nail and there is an oxigen-free environment inside the body tissue which makes an excellent growing environment for the bacteria.

176.63.176.112 (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Why don't they have a causes section?

.....Punkymonkey987 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2008 aint noby got time fo dat

Tetanus' other definition

This page misses the other definiton of tetanus.

[1]tet·a·nus (tět'n-əs) n. 

  1. An acute, often fatal disease characterized by spasmodic contraction of voluntary muscles, especially those of the neck and jaw,
and caused by the toxin of the bacillus Clostridium tetani, which typically infects the body through a deep wound. Also called
lockjaw.
  2. Physiology A state of continuous muscular contraction, especially when induced artificially by rapidly repeated stimuli.



source: tetanus. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tetanus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.209.229 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tetanus

History of Tetanus

Someone should post where tetanus gets its name and anything from the past linked to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.100.47 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think that there should be picture of what actually happens to the muscles when there is a spasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyodo (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metabo-what?

"An endospore is a non-metabolising survival structure that begins to metabolise and cause infection once in an adequate environment."

a non-metabolising survival structure that begins to metabolise

Um... what? Could this be reworded? I have no idea what this is trying to convey. 207.210.16.219 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolism means all the chemical reactions in an organism, such as digestion. A spore is a stage in the life of an organism where it is in something like a "frozen" state. Only when it comes into the right environment do the chemical reactions start again. It's a "survival structure" because this stage helps the organism survive an environment where it doesn't get what it needs to live. If you define life by having metabolism, a spore isn't alive, but it can become alive again, like a seed.

Mechanism of Action of the Toxin

The tetanus toxin initially binds to peripheral nerve terminals. It is transported within the axon and across synaptic junctions until it reaches the central nervous system. There it becomes rapidly fixed to gangliosides at the presynaptic inhibitory motor nerve endings, and is taken up into the axon by endocytosis. The effect of the toxin is to block the release of inhibitory neurotransmitters (glycine and gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) across the synaptic cleft, which is required to check the nervous impulse. If nervous impulses cannot be checked by normal inhibitory mechanisms, it produces the generalized muscular spasms characteristic of tetanus. The toxin appears to act by selective cleavage of a protein component of synaptic vesicles, synaptobrevin II, and this prevents the release of neurotransmitters by the cells.</ref Lectures in Microbiology by Kenneth Todar PhD University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Bacteriologyhttp://textbookofbacteriology.net/themicrobialworld/Tetanus.html /ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helena Bryan (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal and neonatal tetanus

Lancet doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60236-1 JFW | T@lk 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs refs

"==Notable cases==

Contradictory, or am I wrong?

In the introduction, it says that tetanus kills 10% of the infected. But in signs and symptoms, it says it kills between 48-73%. Am I lacking in comprehension, or is this page contradictory? Reubencpiplupyay (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the body of the text to agree with the refs provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also contradictory, in section "Prevention": "recovery from naturally acquired tetanus does not usually result in immunity to tetanus. This is due to the extreme potency of the tetanospasmin toxin. Tetanospasmin will likely be lethal before it will provoke an immune response." if it's lethal, then there is no recovery, so that can't be the explanation 62.99.176.46 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

or is recovery purely through treatment meant? 62.99.176.46 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

survival vs thrive

Section: Causes - "Because C. tetani is an anaerobic bacterium, it and its endospores thrive in environments that lack oxygen. " I think the endospore stage of the bacterium does not "thrive" in any environment. It is produced as aresponse to an environment where the active form of the bacteria would die. And all the spore does is lie dormant, until the environment changes to favorable, when it stops being an endospore, instead becomes a bacterium and then it starts "thriving". 176.63.176.112 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

User:Dennis Bratland adding double negative to article

In order to support his claim that a certain misconception belongs in his favorite article List of common misconceptions, User:Dennis Bratland has introduced a confusing double negative into this article. By adding this double negative, User:Dennis Bratland has significantly worsened the quality and readability of this article. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the citations. The typical dialogue is: “Was the nail rusty?” “No” “Well, it’s probably fine.” It’s very clear why is phrased this way.

You also need to read WP:Editing policy. Even if this double negative were a problem, you should correct the problem, not do a wholesale revert. As explained in the policy, if every addition that was imperfect were reversed, Wikipedia could never have been written at all. Perfection is not required. And regardless, double negatives are hardly forbidden and are often found in good writing.

As far as whatever you’re trying to say with this snide “favorite article” interjection is just weird. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have adjusted the wording some. The sources do present it as a common myth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis should reflect Global statistics

Article states at infobox that the mortality rate is 10% but that is an oversimplification. It cites an article of CDC, that is talking about the mortality rate of the adult population at the States. [1] The vast majority of Tetanus appears in subsaharian Africa or Afghanistan, where the medical infrastructure is quite different. I think the WP article should mention the global burden of Tetanus. Here is a relevant article. Kyu, Hmwe H.; Mumford, John Everett; Stanaway, Jeffrey D.; Barber, Ryan M.; Hancock, Jamie R.; Vos, Theo; Murray, Christopher J. L.; Naghavi, Mohsen (2017-02-08). "Mortality from tetanus between 1990 and 2015: findings from the global burden of disease study 2015". BMC Public Health. 17 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4111-4. ISSN 1471-2458.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) (not watching, please {{ping}}) Cinadon36 16:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

I have noted Doc James that you have reverted my edit[2]. I think my edit was a positive change to the article. The problems I am trying to tackle are:

  • Current ref is a somewhat outdated CDC page while there is a newer version of it (2012 vs 2020)
  • Current citation format does not discriminate between section. It is like pointing to a book without mentioning the page of that specific book.

Since you mention at edit summary "same format style as the rest", what about turning the whole citation style to {{sfn}} footnotes. Would that be ok? I am willing to do it, if there is no objection. Cinadon36 12:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cinadon36 did not revert your edit. The updated reference is still present. The link points to one specific chapter. How about we just add the exact quote form the source?[3] I prefer the reference style provided by the cite toolbar as it also works in more languages of WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Ref1 is used over 20 times. It would be very difficult to add exact quote, if we also take into consideration that we need to update the source. Adding exact quote will force us to add the phrase in a long citation format which will be everywhere making it more difficult for wikipedians to edit the article. (or translate, as I am myself a translator EN to greek WP I find it disturbing when I meet long refs that wont help me read a sentence in one line). Nevertheless I believe our primary goal should be to improve the article and shouldnt worry about translators. I am sure they enjoy translating good articles. Sfn citation style makes it easier to edit (and therefor improve) articles using a single book/webpage too many times. Cinadon36 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)ps. Practically, it was a revert. Cinadon36 16:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Tetanus"