Talk:Prepatellar bursitis

Prepatellar bursitis from trauma?

Should anything be said about prepatellar bursitis from trauma to the knee? I'm only asking as I banged my kneecap a few weeks ago, and came here for info. Is treatment otherwise the same? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got this now and it is painful. I can't walk without a cane and it's difficult to bend or straighten my leg. Not even Aleves are taking care of the pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.214.93 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding some of the references

The BBC is not a reliable source for health care information. Also a number of the refs are from the 1980s. A lot of new review articles are available including:

• Aaron, DL (2011 Jun). "Four common types of bursitis: diagnosis and management". The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 19 (6): 359–67. PMID 21628647. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Price, N (2008 Jun). "Prepatellar bursitis". Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association. 16 (3): 20–4. PMID 18672851. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

If you need help with access let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Aaron 2011 is already used in the article, but I don't have access to Price 2008. Could you send me a copy?

Regarding 1980s sources: I don't think that McAfee 1988 is a problem only because of how many other journal articles cite it, including 11 from 2008 and later. That's the only 1980s source that I heavily relied on to build the article; the others just back up little factoids or suggest that certain treatments are ineffective (which is a much more responsible use of an old source than to suggest what is effective).

Regarding BBC Health, WP:Verifiability has this to say on the matter: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.... Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." If the BBC page didn't give any information about how it was written, I would be skeptical about its reliability, just as you are. However, it lists the author and also gives information about the editor. Hicks's bio certainly isn't the most impressive, but McNair's establishes her as an expert in the field. By my interpretation of WP:V, reliability has been established. Furthermore, the source in question is only used to support the very non-controversial matter of how to treat mild aseptic bursitis. If it were a more contentious statement, I think it would be worth the time to find academic sources, but this stuff is just common sense.

Your thoughts on the matter? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS we do not typically use the popular press. The BBC is so often simply wrong when it comes to health care issues. That guideline also recommends sources from the last 3-5 years and would highly recommend updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC removed. The information contained therein was backed up by another ref anyway, so it's no big deal. I'll work on replacing the McAfee 1988 information tomorrow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prepatellar bursitis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. Will have comments up here by the end of this weekend. Sasata (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally looks good. Here's some quickie comments and nitpicks. Will check some refs and lit search tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• how about an anatomical image of the prepatellar bursa somewhere in the article?
  • Sadly, this is the only image on commons of the bursa, and it isn't particularly illustrative. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, too bad. I think the article (as well as the prepatellar bursa article) would really benefit from such a diagram. Maybe a graphics wiz at WP:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop might be willing to whip up an SVG similar to the one shown in Price 2008 (discussed below)? Sasata (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• dab septic
  • Disambiguated.
• link risk factor?
  • Linked.
• "McAfee and Smith recommend a course of oral antibiotics, with dosages as low as 2 grams per day" Doesn't the specific dosage depend on what the drug is, and the concentration of the drug in the pill? Seems odd to give a blanket recommendation like this.
  • Changed that snippet to mention specific antibiotics. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Refs: no need to link to the abstract, the DOI link already gives that; url links should only be added if it is open access, otherwise use {{subscription}} to warn the reader of paywall
  • Done: DOIs and PMIDs used where possible, URLs used otherwise.
• Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging appears to be the only journal title that's not abbreviated
  • Found an abbreviation for it in another journal article.
• include PMIDs?
  • I've added all of the PMIDs that exist.
• some inconsistency regarded number of authors shown and et al. usage
  • Fixed. Current system is: articles with one or two authors have their names listed, articles with three or more authors get et al'd. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• links to Aaron 2011 and Chatra 2012 leads to Northeastern's login site
  • Addressed by the PMID/DOI usage.

• OK, MoS compliance looks fine, now on to more substantive comments. To help me assess criteria 3a, I looked at PMID 18672851, an article marked by Pubmed as a review that wasn't used as a source here (let me know if you'd like me to email this to you). There were a few details I found that weren't mentioned (and may be too peripheral, I'll leave that to you to decide):

• "Patients usually have … a fluctuant oedema over the inferior pole of the patella."

• As I understand it, "fluctuant oedema" just refers to the buildup of fluids, which is already mentioned in the article. Including this phrase would, in my opinion, just add unnecessary jargon for the reader to sift through. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• "… crepitus is sometimes felt on flexion and extension of the joint."

• Added.

• other possible causes not mentioned in the article include diabetes mellitus, prolonged alcohol usage, uremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and inflammation due to rheumatoid arthritis

• Added.

• might want to mention that the bursae walls are only a few cells thick and so become readily inflamed when irritated (resulting in increased permeability -> more fluid flow -> inflammation)

• Added.

• are ultrasound or electrical stimulation ever used in treatment (as hinted in the abstract here: PMID 8638508)

• The original article which first mentioned this was written in 1994, and no other research I've seen confirms it, so I'm going to pass on that for now. However, the article you've linked to does mention rehabilitative exercise, so I'm going to add that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• this article abstract says that "tuberculosis is important in the differential diagnosis of prepatellar bursitis." PMID 2203571

• Added.

The journal articles you've mentioned above are, frustratingly, inaccessible to this particular Wikipedian. Can you send them my way? I would be eternally in your debt, my mushroom-munching comrade. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sent, check email. Sasata (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Got 'em, thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm confident that the article meets GA standards, and generally complies with WP:MEDMOS guidelines as well. There's a bit of pathophysiology in "Causes", but not enough for it to warrant a separate section. A solid effort overall; promoting now. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)