This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hepatitis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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 Hepatitis.
|
The contents of the Hepatitis biochemical markers page were merged into Hepatitis on 08 August 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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): Ariannacassidy, Bryantyangucsf, PerezMR, Danati265, Vnguyen220, CMedLib, Aliciadcadams. Peer reviewers: Ariannacassidy, Bryantyangucsf, PerezMR, Danati265, Vnguyen220, CMedLib, Aliciadcadams.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
As part of the UCSF Wiki elective, I am working to improve this article with several of my classmates.
Briefly, I wanted to know thoughts on the best way to organize the article. Part of it depends on how my colleagues arrange theirs, but I was thinking:
- Vaccination by type - Social/behavioral - Successes (with some epidemiology)
I would also like to include an image of the CDC vaccination schedule - but I'm not sure if I can do this under licensing restrictions.
I will be adding a Research Directions section that should tie in nicely with the above.
As a new member, I welcome any and all suggestions. Thank you! Aliciadcadams (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
1) Suggest ways to polish Prevention Section 2) Suggest how to "beef up" Research Directions. I don't just want to provide a list of clinical trials (that's not what we're here to do), but I'm feeling kinda stuck. Thanks! Aliciadcadams (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
My plans for the signs and symptoms section are to add a brief introduction to the acute vs. chronic symptoms, in addition to providing a timeline for an acute infection as below:
For chronic hepatitis I plan on cleaning up the section in general, and lessening the focus on the chronic symptoms associated specifically with cirrhosis. I believe it would be better to link to the cirrhosis article itself for that discussion.
I also plan on adding a Society and culture section to the article. A majority of my focus will be the economic burden of the acute infectious hepatitides (HAV/HEV) in the developing world and chronic hepatitis in the developed world.
I would also like to have a notable cases sections, but I debate the usefulness of this information. Granted I have not dove as in-depth in my research for this. I'm curious what the community's opinion on this would be.
Thanks for any and all feedback. PerezMR (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
As part of the UCSF WikiProject medicine I would like to add an epidemiology and special populations section to this article. My plan is a follows:
1. Viral Hepatitis ( Hep A, B, C, D, E)
2. Alcoholic Hepatitis
3. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis
I will do some linking to the viral hepatitis article, but from my reading, that article does not do an adequate job of discussing epidemiology for each of these entities.
I appreciate any feedback you may have!Danati265 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I am also a member of the UCSF team, and I will primarily be working on adding a screening section to this page.
I will mostly focus on screening for the viral hepatitides, mainly Hep B and Hep C, using guidelines from various governmental agencies and professional societies as my sources. Among other things, I will describe screening in specific patient populations, for example pregnant women, patients with HIV, etc. There will be a brief mention of the specifics of the lab tests used (though this will be covered in more detail in the diagnosis section).
I will briefly address screening for other kinds of hepatitis, though this will be very brief.
I am considering also addressing screening for hepatocellular carcinoma and other sequellae in patients who have a known diagnosis of chronic hepatitis.
It would be great to get other people's thoughts on the following questions:
Hello all,
Yet another member of the UCSF Wikipedia elective, I'll be working on adding a section about History and improving the outcomes/prognosis area.
Pushing forward a big chunk of stuff about history that I have been working on, open to any suggestions. The next steps I will be taking over the next few days will focus around Blumberg and his Nobel Prize for his research surrounding the vaccine.
Have not yet took a big step into the Prognosis section due to my initial endeavors into the above but aiming to likely look at this early next week. Tentatively plan to perhaps discuss outcomes based on different serotypes of the virus, with a special section regarding fulminant hepatitis.
Please offer any suggestions you might have for information that should be included for this novice Wikipedia user! Bryantyangucsf (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Finished material about Blumberg and vaccine. Unsure whether to include anythinga bout other hepatitis serotypes, the history stuff I found was far less interesting / significant as the hep B material. Will for now focus on updating the outcomes/prognosis section over next 2 days. Bryantyangucsf (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Inserted some material about prognosis of acute hepatitis - I decided to break up the prognosis by acute vs chronic instead of doing line by line for every hepatitis, since I felt that it flowed better, but I'm open to feedback on this. Will work on chronic hepatitis prognosis tomorrow Bryantyangucsf (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! Another member of the UCSF Wiki elective here, and a relative newbie. I have added a treatment section, which did not exist before, and am in the process of updating it. Any and all comments are welcome!
I noticed that another editor removed some of my brief plain language definitions for terms such as ascites and edema and replaced them with hyperlinks to those terms. Thank you for the links! I'm curious whether this was done to comply with Wiki protocol/MEDMOS, or because these terms were previously defined in the article, or for some other reason. I looked through the article history but was not able to locate when the revisions were made. If it is not inconsistent with MEDMOS, I would prefer to keep plain language definitions for readers who are skimming and are not familiar with these terms.
Also, just a note that we will be peer reviewing the article as a group next week and will attempt to clean up any inconsistencies and redundancies that still exist.
CMedLib (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, someone is persistently causing problems with the references (see the page History). They are using the same definition for different sources e.g <ref name=":18">. I don't understand why this is being done. The numbers in the ref tag are not related to the numbering of the reference list. I suggest that from now on that you define references using the first author as in <ref name = Yoon> or better still by using the PubMed ID number eg. <ref name = PMID1234>. It's taking me ages to fix these problems. Graham Beards (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added ((main|Hepatitis X)) to the article for A, B, C, D, and E. This may be against convention a bit. My reasoning is that visitors come to Hepatitis as a front door to the topic. They see in the TOC the kinds (ABCDE) then go to a section and, if a main were there, would be grateful and allow them to continue beyond the blurb.
Before there were no mains. Now there are mains. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I would classify NASH as a cause of hepatitis. It; however, is a cause with an etiology that is only partly known. We should also list the most common type first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
WHO says "Hepatitis viruses are the most common cause of hepatitis in the world but other infections, toxic substances (e.g. alcohol, certain drugs), and autoimmune diseases can also cause hepatitis."[1]
NAIAID says "Viruses are the most common cause of hepatitis, but the condition can also be caused by other infections, heavy alcohol use, toxins, certain medications, and autoimmune disease."
NIDDK says "NASH is a form of NAFLD in which you have inflammation and liver cell damage, in addition to fat in your liver."[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Per the source "Hepatitis B vaccines provide protection from HDV infection." Thus there is a vaccine indirectly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
We do not need to list synonyms for "resolve on its own" in the lead. The term is clear.
This is a general overview of hepatitis. We can state antiviral medications are recommended for all people with chronic hep C. We do not need to list the specific meds in the lead. These 1) change 2) this level of details belongs in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What does that mean? 188.27.177.241 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The article currently says: "The CDC, WHO, USPSTF, AASLD, and ACOG recommend screening people at high risk for hepatitis D infection. These populations include people who are: Blood or organ donors.[10]..."
Reference #10 is an article about hepatitis C. I don't see any mention of hepatitis D, and it doesn't mention blood donors at all. In fact, the Hepatitis *D* section in this Wikipedia article lists 6 high risk groups, and 5 of the items cite this hepatitis *C* article.
I'm not a doctor so I can't say what the correct high-risk groups for hepatitis D are, but I don't think the sources here support the claims as written. (Since "Hepatitis D can only infect people already infected with hepatitis B", I would think the primary high risk group is people who have hepatitis B.) 2601:602:A080:1240:2656:D64A:1266:FF1D (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The article currently says: "The CDC, WHO, USPSTF, and ACOG recommend routine hepatitis B screening for certain high-risk populations. Specifically, these populations include people who are: [...] Blood, organ, or tissue donors".
The reference for this claim is a lengthy set of WHO guidelines, and the only mention of blood donation is the line "Blood and organ donors should also be screened". Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think they meant to imply that blood donors are a "high-risk population" for hepatitis B (or any other disease), but simply that hepatitis B should be one of the standard tests for the public blood supply.
I would say that blood donation from a person with hepatitis carries a high risk of transferring the disease, but I wouldn't say that this makes blood donors a "high-risk population". Similarly, I would agree that this calls for screening of donated blood/organ/tissues, but I would not say that it calls for screening blood/organ/tissue donors. But I'm not a doctor -- does the medical field use these terms differently? The way this article is written, it's maybe technically true if you squint just right, but I think it's going to be misinterpreted by most readers. 2601:602:A080:1240:2656:D64A:1266:FF1D (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)