Contents

Talk:Whipple's disease

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Pathology Mid‑importance 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 Pathology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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 Whipple's disease. 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

Who is credited for discovering that Tropheryma whipplei causes Whipple's disease? ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 1377787 seems to be the publication of relevance, although various groups were looking at bacterial rRNA prior to this result. JFW | T@lk 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 12672878 closes the circle: T. whipplei was detected in biopsies from Whipple's original 1907 patient! JFW | T@lk 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent reviews on this condition are:

• doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70042-2 - Lancet Infect Dis 2008
• doi:10.1097/MOG.0b013e3282f3f4f1 - Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2008
• doi:10.1056/NEJMra062477 - N Engl J Med 2007

Citing Didier Raoult at least once is going to be inevitable :-). JFW | T@lk 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source: immune reconstitution syndrome happens in about 10% and can be nasty: link. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've started updating this I might as well give the article a good work-over and hopefully turn it into a useful resource. I still need to retrieve the Fenollar 2007 NEJM review. So far I've made expansions based on Schneider 2008. I will not use Marth & Schneider (2008, Curr Opin Gastroenterol)

By sections:

•  Done Signs and symptoms (could still add percentages, but probably meaningless)
• Mechanism (expand from Schneider and NEJM)
• Diagnosis (need expansion)
• Treatment (ditto)
• Epidemiology (could add something about prognosis)
• History (could have more historical content still)

Further input from everyone much appreciated. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment section is "correct but thin/wobbly." I may be able to work on appropriate WP:RSMED that address:

• IRIS PMID 21135294
• Study for the Initial treatment of Morbus Whipple SIMW PMID 19879276
• Abx choice with ref to different sites of tissue dz, or abx allergies
• PCR surveillance of CSF
• prognosis

FeatherPluma (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work FeatherPluma! As you can see above I made this article one of my projects, and then I got distracted, possibly by an FAC elsewhere. I'll see what I can do to help, but sadly very busy in meatspace. With regards to the articles you mentioned, please bear in mind that we should be cautious with primary sources. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through, there are some statements that seem inaccurate and some that are not properly sourced. Under the section "Diagnosis" - skin rashes are quoted as a clinical manifestation. I am not familiar with this as a symptom, and cannot find this in any source, including the one cited (a french article, there are many perfectly good English reviews to cite in an English encyclopedia...) I will now correct this. I will also post about any other corrections. Treatment is also out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibenami (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 July 2014

Hello Ibenami - I believe the rashes are mentioned in an old source. I agree that the article is in need of updating; I've listed some reviews above but I never got round to improving the article.

Feel free to fix whatever is necessary and let me know if you need a hand! JFW | T@lk 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00128-1 JFW | T@lk 04:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]