The Mayo Clinic websites are reliable, and they are way better than having no references! But ideally, a Wikipedia article will use the medical literature (WP:MEDRS) to derive its own content. Biosthmors (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, just wanted to start beefing up the references and went for the easy references first. As I continue to work on the article, I'll be sure to continue adding references from medical literature. There was just a paucity of reliable references when I started and big chunks copied right off WebMD.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FOOTNOTE: If you are female, and you find yourself having the symptoms described for costochondritis together with sharp pain in the mid-back get yourself to an Emergency Room immediately. This is one of the rarely caught symptoms of a Myocardial Infarction in women, and can be fatal. I know. This just happened to me and my Internist dismissed it as costochondritis and a spine problem, 3 days later I had a full-blown MI (heart attack). An EKG would have caught this if she had listened. Joeline Webber, Oroville, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.48.122 (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Costochondritis and Tietze's syndrome are not interchangeable
Besides, I can't see any citations for this part of the first sentence of the article.
Tietze syndrome is a rare cause of chest pain. The condition was first described by Tietze in 1921 as a benign, nonsuppurative painful swelling of the superior chondrosternal joints. Costochondritis, a differential diagnosis for Tietze syndrome, characterized by painful, tender, but nonswollen chondrosternal joints, is more common. Although these conditions are different, they are commonly mistaken for the same.
Hi. I haven't done this before, so please bear with me. The bot has reverted three changes I added to the 'Costochondritis' (CC) page. Fair enough that it's reverted the YouTube external link - wasn't sure about that myself but it's a good overview of the New Zealand manual physiotherapy standard view of CC. However the two changes within the body of the article are supported by research, admittedly limited, and I feel they should stand as representing a reason for CC and hence a logical treatment pathway which is not otherwise well disseminated. I do think this is important. The NZ view which I am espousing as an origin for most CC is the only, repeat only, explanation for such specific pain and inflammation on the sternocostal articulations. No systemic origin accounts for this. I'm happy to discuss. I lecture in this area to medical conferences; have 30 years' experience as a New Zealand manual physiotherapist. Steve August New Zealand (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The § Differential diagnosis section needs more work. At present, it lists and links a whole lot of other conditions that may present with similar symptoms. However, it fails to describe how these diagnoses are differentiated. yoyo (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been long awaited, but I decided to bite the bullet and start improving the article starting with the diagnosis section. I am a new editor, so yoyo if you're still around, I would love your thoughts!
To anyone wondering my process: I avoided removing information that was previously stated, however several of the items on the differential diagnosis list was not clearly cited, and therefore I was unable to find sourcing for these claims. Anything that I was unable to find reliable, up-to-date sourcing for (such as gastritis) was removed and/or replaced with up-to-date information (such as replacing drug use with cocaine use). Overall, I added several other recent sources and information. Since costochondritis is a fairly popular page, there is still a long ways to go to improve the article's quality. Hoping this helps. :) Jebbles (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC) (edited Jebbles (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Jebbles: Some reactions on re-reading the article for the first time in years:
Thanks for your efforts! Please keep on improving Wikipedia when you can.
In§ Diagnosis, we read: "The physical exam may assess if the pain is worsened with movements of the upper body or breathing, and may be reproduced upon using the crowing rooster maneuver, the hooking maneuver, or the horizontal flexion maneuver." (My emphases.) However, there is no explanation of any of these manoeuvres, none of which I'm familiar with, and I doubt many people are. Perhaps you can find a link to explain them.
Some references are used many times, e.g. the 6th, without giving any further context, e.g. a page number. This makes it difficult for the interested reader to follow them up. A particular style of referencing allows the editor to give the relevant page numbers in a reference.
yoyo, thank you! This is phenomenal feedback. I'll definitely look into that citation method which will definitely come in handy for some other stuff I'm working on, and I will go on a hunt to find some resources to explain the maneuvers! Jebbles (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I'm a new editor who is trying to breathe some life into some articles that are outdated. Costochondritis is the first article on my list! I will be doing my best to retain as much information as possible while bringing it up to date with recent and reliable information. There are several references used throughout the article that are extremely old, and several that do not meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines from what I can see. If there are any concerns regarding my process, please let me know. Everything is new to me, so this is a learning experience! Jebbles (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, so after a little bit of TLC I've expanded on some sections and did some general housekeeping in terms of sources/citations. The article is now rated at a C.
Areas that I believe are still of concern/need improvement:
Causes - The article about infection is a little bit suspicious in the sense that I wonder if they truly mean Teitze syndrome rather than costochondritis, as they mention swelling/mass in it. The article is 10 years old and is a primary source. Then there's also the other statements re: vitamin D, chest binding, and hypomobility that need more reliable sources + an expansion of information.
Pathogenesis is a very small section, I believe we may be able to expand on it, however I am at a brain block.
Treatment - I still left the other treatment claims by the Mayo Clinic at the bottom of the treatment section, none of the newer references I was looking at mentioned these forms of treatment. If no one has any qualms, this section should possibly be removed to get rid of the Mayo Clinic source.
Epidemiology is not my strong suit, it is very bare and needs some more love and attention.
Pictures! I believe there HAS to be better photos. I removed the one black/white photo that showed the muscle groups and replaced it with a better one that shows the muscle groups, but it doesn't quite reflect what is in the article. Then theres the infobox picture, which doesn't label the costochondral or costosternal joints. I'm not the best with photos, perhaps if someone is reading this they might want to find something better? Unless someone is attached to the photo that is up.
I will be editing the entire article in order to get it to GA. This may take quite a bit of time as I am very busy, but I will do my best. No major changes will be made by me that I cannot complete in a timely manner, as to not leave the article mid-construction. Most of my work will revolve around fixing up the citations, making sure everything is amply cited, and content changes. Hopefully, GAN will follow my completion of my edits, assuming I can get the content to that level, which I should being that this is a mid-importance article with plenty of research on it. Again, I am very busy, so I do not expect to complete the edits for months to come, if not into the summer.
The Presentation section is self-contradictory about radiating pain -- in the first paragraph it says it may be accompanied by radiating pain, while in the third paragraph it says radiating pain is unrelated. Both have sources and I'm not sure which is more reliable. Wantsarevolution (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
