Talk:Febrile neutrophilic dermatosis

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM. kilbad (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

On Fri 20 June 2008 I started to have a bit of a tickly cough that ewas light and annoying. Then i had a week of feeling unwell and having to stay in bed with flu like symtoms, but which turned out to be a glandeler infection. The day after I started to feel better I came out in small spots on my upper arms and then a spot appeared on my left shin. These turned into sores after a few days. It was first thought that it was an allergic reaction to Penicillan I had taken for a day, but after my doctor put me on Chorphenamine 4mg 1 a day, and Erythromycin 250mg 2x4 times a day the sores got worse and after 3 days I quit the medication. That was on Fri 4th July and by the 9th July the sores were the size of 50p pieces and some a little larger. My Doctor then thought it was Erythema Multiform and put me on Steriod cream which was the only recommended treatment. On 11th July I could hardly get up or down stairs as my joints were sore and swollen. The sore on my left shin had an infected lump beside it and the pain in my arms and even my eyes were getting unbearable. The skin specialist in the Hospital, (Craigavon Area Hospital) did a biopsi and blood test and confirmed that it was Sweets Syndrome. She put me on the only medication there was for it which was 8 Prednisolone tabs 5mg a day for the first week. They started to work into the second day when the swelling in my joints went down and by the 3rd day I felt almost no pain at all in them. My eyes which had been bloodshot and sore for a fortnight were clear in 3 days. My sores took almost 2 weeks to clear so that there was no pain and then no itching at all. I am now into the 4th week and down to 1 tab a day. The only problem I have now is stomach ach and the doc has perscribed 1 tab a day to ease that. I have had blood test took the 3 times I have been in the Hospital and the Doctor seems happy with everything.

External Links

I'm not sure if anyone is currently overseeing this article, but I thought I would ask before doing anything as bold as adding a new section. I would like to see an external links section. It doesn't seem like something that should go in the reference list, since it's not a "source," but it's definitely a source of first-hand experiences of SS sufferers, many more SS photos than I've seen anywhere else online, and a community of supportive members for the newly-diagnosed. The page is maintained by an SS sufferer who is not a professional web developer, so it isn't particularly pro-looking, but it's non-commercial, and as I said, it's where people with this affliction can go and find others to share information, photos, etc. When you have an uncommon affliction, this is important. I'd be happy to add the section myself, if it's alright with whoever is overseeing the article. Thanks. Leha Carpenter (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally we don't add links to support groups. See WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL, specifically ELNO point 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" in conjunction with ELOFFICIAL's comment "No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4."

The layout guidelines for medical articles are more specific - the EL section states "Please avoid links such as...Links to web-based or email-based support groups for patients, professionals, or other affected people (even if run by a charitable organization)". Harsh world, but these links are not considered encyclopedic and makes it look like they are endorsed by wikipedia. Normally if the DMOZ has a page on the subject, it would include links to suport sites but it doesn't seem to in this case. Also, stuff like this is a brief google search away, so it's arguable we're adding much to help the reader. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for checking up on me. (-; Leha Carpenter (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of Acronym

I don't recall seeing it in the style guide, but does Wikipedia have some standard for the use and placement of acronyms? In this article, the acronym (SS) isn't introduced until several sections in, and then is used only sporadically. In previous documentation I've worked on there was a definite preferred style: the acronym or initialism occurs once, at the first occurrence, as a parenthetical reference following the full spelling, and then the full spelling does not occur again for the length of the article. You could do it this way, or you could reintroduce the full spelling for each section, or whenever a section begins with the term, or... So my comment here is that some kind of style ought to be followed for this article, but I am not sure which of them Wikipedia style would choose. It's jarring to see the acronym randomly distributed.Leha Carpenter (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you can be bold and make the change throughout - remember, wikipedia is assembled by many, many different editors and not everyone has the experience to know what is standard. Generally if it looks good and makes sense, go for it - any reasonable editor will assume good faith and correct it if it's wrong. WP:ABBR seems to support your assertion pretty clearly as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WLU. I will go in and fix. Leha Carpenter (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrophilia, citations, expansion

The definition in this article states that neutrophilia is not a required feature of the syndrome, but the main source (Cohen)--and every other reliable source I've seen--states clearly, regardless of etiology, that one of the most fundamental diagnostic criteria of the disorder is "histopathologic evidence of a dense neutrophilic infiltrate without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis." Even in the case of G-CSF induced SS, there is a neutrophilic infiltrate present at the sites of inflammation, either because of the suppression of apoptosis, or possibly because of the rapidity of increase of neutrophil density at sites of inflammation, where otherwise there may be systemic neutropenia. The definition makes it sound like neutrophilia is no longer a part of the diagnostic criteria, when it is, in fact, a fundamental component thereof.

Also, this article seems (to me) to need a lot more citation of sources, and maybe some additional sources (although the Cohen review is extremely thorough, and probably the best source out there on this subject). There is a good review at Emedicine: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1122152-overview, and a couple more on PubMed, one dealing with childhood onset, which doesn't get mentioned here.

Even flushing out with some of the other info from the Cohen source would be nice. The (unsourced) differential diagnosis in the article is misleading: most doctors would not confuse SS with urticaria, for example, and there are many conditions that SS does get confused with, all documented in http://www.ojrd.com/content/2/1/34/table/T8, from the Cohen article. I'm not saying the article here should have all of them, but maybe a more representative smattering...

I'm pretty familiar with the sources on this subject, so would be happy to add more to the article, if someone wants to oversee my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehacarpenter (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the rfimprove header tag, but would like to keep the citation needed tags a little longer to remind myself where to find sources or expand, if that's okay. Leha Carpenter (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"dense infiltrates by neutrophil granulocytes"

"Infiltrate" is only a verb, isn't it? Should this say "infiltration"? Equinox (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)