Talk:Pel–Ebstein fever

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

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 Pel–Ebstein fever.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

WPMED assessment

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I assess this article as borderline stub/start quality and low/mid importance. I assess most terminology articles (such as this one) mid importance, reserving low importance for articles on organizations and people of only local or regional interest. --Una Smith (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The same type of cyclic fever is also associated with other conditions such as tuberculosis???

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The citation [1] does not support this (it does not mention tuberculosis at all), so I have changed it to the fact template. Pointillist (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is mention of tb really needed? Mikebar (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If there's no source for the statement about tuberculosis, it should definitely be struck out because it is misleading. Tuberculosis isn't listed as having a relapsing/recurrent fever pattern in the source I consulted - Isaac, Benedict et al (1991) "Unexplained Fever: A Guide to the Diagnosis and Management of Febrile States" ISBN 0849345561, page 42 - Google Book Search [2]). Maybe we should wait a week to see if anyone comes back with a citation, and if not remove the TB mention? I've changed the template from Template:Fact to Template:Dubious to draw attention to this discussion.
BTW, thanks for adding "anecdotally" to the 5-10% claim - good catch! Pointillist (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

TB ref removed, generalized. Probably still could use a cite to tighten it up though. Mikebar (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic