This 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 Cholecystitis.
|
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): AVinson11. Peer reviewers: CoolGuy555.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I edited this page. I am new in Wikipedia and new with its rules. I am not sure what shall I edit here. Q. Should there be Exact/Correct/Clear and detail information in Encyclopedia? Q. And How much infomation should it be here for non medical field related presonalls or for sufferer?
P.S: 1. What is this "perforation" and "rupture" here. 2. Are they synonymous?
Thank you. Bye!
Hello,
Your first question about detail information is pretty vague; I'm not sure what you're asking about specifically.
Perforation infers a breakage in the endothelial lining, either via a gallstone or by instruments during (endoscopic) surgery, while rupture infers that the bladder has broken apart either via physical trauma, tear of weakened tissue or by excess intraluminal pressure. They essentially describe the same thing, with different causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratznium ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/26/2804
Calculous cholecystitis only (90% of cases). JFW | T@lk 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a doctor; what does this mean:
Should this (+/-) be changed to layman's speak?
207.171.191.60 ( talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
+/- means with or without, I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.104.50.91 ( talk) 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Does Georgievskiy — Myussi's sign actually exist. I can find no reference to it except various web pages and every single listing when googled contains the exact same phrase. If it is not an officially recognized eponym, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.174.70 ( talk) 02:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
If I were to edit this page, I'd take out the differential diagnosis stuff. If you're actually qualified to do medical diagnosis, I would hope you rely o something more authoritative than Wikipedia for this sort of thing. And if (like most of us) you're not qualified it's not stuff you want to know. What you do want to know is how the condition is normally treated. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
To whomever reads, I am looking for feedback regarding the readability of the article. Is it more lay-person friendly now? Does the organization make sense? Would you recommend heading and subheadings to be any different or in a different order? I have edited most sections but have not yet edited the lead or the management sections. Thanks! ( User talk:wwtele)
The page looks great, good job editing! A few points that I would offer:
The lead: I think there are areas that you may consider simplifying for the common audience. “obstruction” = block, “accumulation” = build up. I think it is great that you say “not everyone who has gallstones will go on to develop cholecystitis” as this is important for the public to avoid this common confusion of the two conditions. After the mention of complications: “uncomplicated cholecystitis has an excellent prognosis...” I would add briefly what it means to be have complicated cholecystitis so the reader doesn't have to go looking in the article if they don't want to.
I like the image of the micrograph, but I am wondering if the lead image should be something more comprehensible/meaningful to the general public. Perhaps a gross image of an inflamed gall bladder?
I like the outline, it works well with the article/subject. The only thing I would add is maybe the “alternative diagnosis” section should be next to or a subsection of “diagnosis”? It also works the way you have it, just a thought. Also, maybe the management section should have some subheadings for easier navigation.
I would respectfully disagree with the user that said the differential diagnosis is not important. I would think that the lay public would want to know what else could be going on if they think they have cholecystitis.
One of the hardest thing I have found in editing Wikipedia is minimizing 'medical-ese' and keeping things in basic terms. Overall the readability id good, but there are still a few areas I think that could be edited to more common language, for example: “Upon palpation, the gallbladder is almost always tender to touch and may be palpable in 25-50% of people with cholecystitis” = A gallbladder with cholecystitis is almost always tender to touch and, because of the inflammation, it's size can be felt from the outside of the body in 25-50% of people with cholecystitis.
Great images in the imaging and management sections! Excellent resources, you have a great number and high quality! Overall fantastic job, the article looks great and I am sure that the wiki community and users appreciate all the hard work you put into it! Dorafriedman ( talk) 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with everything you stated. I haven't touched the lead yet. I will work on it this week and try to make all the changes you suggested. I tried to find an open source photo of an inflamed gallbladder but couldn't find one. I instead put in a drawing of the gallbladder which I think is more useful that a histology slide. I put the alternative diagnoses in the diagnosis section. I haven't tackled the management section but agree it could be broken down a bit with sub headings Thanks for the help!
( talk)
The 'Management' section says "Homeopathic approaches to treating cholecystitis have not been validated by evidence and should not be used in place of surgery." Should this sentence be broadened to include naturopathic remedies? I believe the most common natural treatment is a "gallbladder flush" involving consumption of some combination of oils, magnesium sulphate, lemon juice and apple juice. It's not technically homeopathic, but it's equally ineffective. 182.239.139.90 ( talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a medical student making edits to this article. I plan to improve the following items on this page:
That's it for my initial workplan. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for this article!
AVinson11 ( talk) 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
AVinson11 ( talk) 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
AVinson11 ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
AVinson11 ( talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I really like how Drew treated the infobox, moving to the end of article the ICD number and other information that isn’t pertinent to lay readers. I think a lay reader looking at this article would really appreciate having information like “specialty, treatment, causes” right up at the top. Very nice.
In the first paragraph, the sentences drawing the distinction between biliary colic and cholecystitis read a little awkwardly and might be confusing. Maybe rephrasing it as “Acute cholecystitis is distinct from biliary colic in that…” could help to clear it up.
Nice organization of the lead, going from description of the disease to risk factors/causes to treatment to epidemiology. Very easy to follow. Solid citations.
Great use of the osmosis video!
A good job done avoiding unnecessary jargon in the signs and symptoms section. Once you get into the causes – especially acalculous cholecystits- it becomes pretty laden with jargon. While lay readers are much more likely to read the lead, which has great use of lay terminology, you could think about trying to make this section more accessible to non-medical professionals.
Nice differential, but not totally complete (gastritis? malignancy?). Did you think about organizing it from most to least common or something like that?
In general, it’s awesome to see Drew collaborating with Doc James in the talk page. Really great example of how Wikipedia is ideally supposed to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuy555 ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This 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 Cholecystitis.
|
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): AVinson11. Peer reviewers: CoolGuy555.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I edited this page. I am new in Wikipedia and new with its rules. I am not sure what shall I edit here. Q. Should there be Exact/Correct/Clear and detail information in Encyclopedia? Q. And How much infomation should it be here for non medical field related presonalls or for sufferer?
P.S: 1. What is this "perforation" and "rupture" here. 2. Are they synonymous?
Thank you. Bye!
Hello,
Your first question about detail information is pretty vague; I'm not sure what you're asking about specifically.
Perforation infers a breakage in the endothelial lining, either via a gallstone or by instruments during (endoscopic) surgery, while rupture infers that the bladder has broken apart either via physical trauma, tear of weakened tissue or by excess intraluminal pressure. They essentially describe the same thing, with different causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratznium ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/26/2804
Calculous cholecystitis only (90% of cases). JFW | T@lk 05:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a doctor; what does this mean:
Should this (+/-) be changed to layman's speak?
207.171.191.60 ( talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
+/- means with or without, I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.104.50.91 ( talk) 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Does Georgievskiy — Myussi's sign actually exist. I can find no reference to it except various web pages and every single listing when googled contains the exact same phrase. If it is not an officially recognized eponym, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.174.70 ( talk) 02:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
If I were to edit this page, I'd take out the differential diagnosis stuff. If you're actually qualified to do medical diagnosis, I would hope you rely o something more authoritative than Wikipedia for this sort of thing. And if (like most of us) you're not qualified it's not stuff you want to know. What you do want to know is how the condition is normally treated. Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
To whomever reads, I am looking for feedback regarding the readability of the article. Is it more lay-person friendly now? Does the organization make sense? Would you recommend heading and subheadings to be any different or in a different order? I have edited most sections but have not yet edited the lead or the management sections. Thanks! ( User talk:wwtele)
The page looks great, good job editing! A few points that I would offer:
The lead: I think there are areas that you may consider simplifying for the common audience. “obstruction” = block, “accumulation” = build up. I think it is great that you say “not everyone who has gallstones will go on to develop cholecystitis” as this is important for the public to avoid this common confusion of the two conditions. After the mention of complications: “uncomplicated cholecystitis has an excellent prognosis...” I would add briefly what it means to be have complicated cholecystitis so the reader doesn't have to go looking in the article if they don't want to.
I like the image of the micrograph, but I am wondering if the lead image should be something more comprehensible/meaningful to the general public. Perhaps a gross image of an inflamed gall bladder?
I like the outline, it works well with the article/subject. The only thing I would add is maybe the “alternative diagnosis” section should be next to or a subsection of “diagnosis”? It also works the way you have it, just a thought. Also, maybe the management section should have some subheadings for easier navigation.
I would respectfully disagree with the user that said the differential diagnosis is not important. I would think that the lay public would want to know what else could be going on if they think they have cholecystitis.
One of the hardest thing I have found in editing Wikipedia is minimizing 'medical-ese' and keeping things in basic terms. Overall the readability id good, but there are still a few areas I think that could be edited to more common language, for example: “Upon palpation, the gallbladder is almost always tender to touch and may be palpable in 25-50% of people with cholecystitis” = A gallbladder with cholecystitis is almost always tender to touch and, because of the inflammation, it's size can be felt from the outside of the body in 25-50% of people with cholecystitis.
Great images in the imaging and management sections! Excellent resources, you have a great number and high quality! Overall fantastic job, the article looks great and I am sure that the wiki community and users appreciate all the hard work you put into it! Dorafriedman ( talk) 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with everything you stated. I haven't touched the lead yet. I will work on it this week and try to make all the changes you suggested. I tried to find an open source photo of an inflamed gallbladder but couldn't find one. I instead put in a drawing of the gallbladder which I think is more useful that a histology slide. I put the alternative diagnoses in the diagnosis section. I haven't tackled the management section but agree it could be broken down a bit with sub headings Thanks for the help!
( talk)
The 'Management' section says "Homeopathic approaches to treating cholecystitis have not been validated by evidence and should not be used in place of surgery." Should this sentence be broadened to include naturopathic remedies? I believe the most common natural treatment is a "gallbladder flush" involving consumption of some combination of oils, magnesium sulphate, lemon juice and apple juice. It's not technically homeopathic, but it's equally ineffective. 182.239.139.90 ( talk) 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I am a medical student making edits to this article. I plan to improve the following items on this page:
That's it for my initial workplan. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for this article!
AVinson11 ( talk) 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
AVinson11 ( talk) 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
AVinson11 ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
AVinson11 ( talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I really like how Drew treated the infobox, moving to the end of article the ICD number and other information that isn’t pertinent to lay readers. I think a lay reader looking at this article would really appreciate having information like “specialty, treatment, causes” right up at the top. Very nice.
In the first paragraph, the sentences drawing the distinction between biliary colic and cholecystitis read a little awkwardly and might be confusing. Maybe rephrasing it as “Acute cholecystitis is distinct from biliary colic in that…” could help to clear it up.
Nice organization of the lead, going from description of the disease to risk factors/causes to treatment to epidemiology. Very easy to follow. Solid citations.
Great use of the osmosis video!
A good job done avoiding unnecessary jargon in the signs and symptoms section. Once you get into the causes – especially acalculous cholecystits- it becomes pretty laden with jargon. While lay readers are much more likely to read the lead, which has great use of lay terminology, you could think about trying to make this section more accessible to non-medical professionals.
Nice differential, but not totally complete (gastritis? malignancy?). Did you think about organizing it from most to least common or something like that?
In general, it’s awesome to see Drew collaborating with Doc James in the talk page. Really great example of how Wikipedia is ideally supposed to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolGuy555 ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)