Talk:Incidentaloma
| WikiProject Medicine | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] The main point of this article unstated?
I'm not a doctor, but I would have thought that the most important aspect of this subject is the issue of the unnecessary distress of many patients after being told by doctors that they may have cancer. In my experience, some patients in this situation do not appear to understand that the odds are that they don't have cancer, and one can ask whether doctors are explaining the facts to patients properly.
[edit] Book chapter on this subject worth citing?
This newish book for a general readership is highly regarded: http://www.amazon.com/Overdiagnosed-Making-People-Pursuit-Health/dp/0807022004 I'm not the author, or in any way connected to this book.
[edit] No dilemma here
I removed this statement: " the clinician is often faced with the dilemma whether to inform the patient of this finding, particularly if it is not completely certain if the finding is harmless." -- Not so. The clinician has always the duty to inform the patient. The issue may be how far to go to prove that the lesion is harmless. Ekem 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed
This reference was in the article:
- Hayward R. VOMIT (victims of modern imaging technology)—an acronym for our times. BMJ 2003;326:1273
Very funny, but there is no material in the article that refers to it. Until such is written, I've moved it here. JFW | T@lk 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article should be deleted
This is not a diagnostic term, nor is it a clinical term. Anyone who thinks the term is useful or important ought to post the citation they believe confers credibility to the term. It may be tough to find peer-reviewed citations for medical articles but those that aren't should at least include a way top find the etymology. Just appearing on a website does not confer credibility.
Online notes from a note service run at any WHO-approved medical school would be great, in my view. Kernel.package (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia doesn't need to be linked with educational material from medical schools. Quite on the contrary, those would not be regarded as WP:MEDRS.
- If you had bothered looking at the references, you would have noted that incidentally found tumours on medical imaging are an exceedingly common problem, and a conundrum for the treating physician. The concept deserves its own article, no question. It is verifiable, notable and neutral. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
