Talk:Burn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Translation (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Removal of 5th and 6th degree burn?[edit]

Why was that removed? It is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEMZ1995 (talkcontribs) 22:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's standards for sourcing biomedical information. The information added was sourced to the website "omg-facts.com" which doesn't meet the guideline. Zad68 14:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is and my father (who is among many other hats a paramedic) verifies that 5th and 6th degree burns (burns through all flesh and to the bone, and burns where even the bone is charred or burned respectively) are defined in several medical texts and legal texts. Generally such burns are pretty much always fatal and are discovered only in autopsy of burn victims Technically one might survive a 5th degree burn with amputation but the prognosis is slim. I an fairly certain my human anatomy book in college mentioned them as well but it is not readily available. A search finds several sources online other than OMG Facts that lists them as well but I do not know that they conform to WP:MEDRS either as many are lawyer sites, but given that the concept seems to be prevalent and documented it should be straight forward enough to find sources that do meet notability for inclusion. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 02:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the foremost textbook of burns and not mentioned in any of the review articles I have looked at. This ref you have provided, what is the ISBN and when was it published? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That edition of that book was published in 1921 and so fails WP:MEDDATE. Modern medical sources do not use these terms fifth and sixth degree. Zad68 19:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Strangely ambivalent statement and possibly inconsistent[edit]

The article contains the following sentence which seems quite strangely ambivalent and potentially non-scientific.

"It is not clear how to manage blisters, but it is probably reasonable to leave them intact."

From my experience and from a quick search of medical literature it seems to be pretty universally accepted that one NOT pop blisters as broken skin is a greater vector for infection and in many cases occlusive dressings are preferred as they keep the blister from popping and keep infection out.

I am not sure if it should be changed or not and this is not an article of my normal interest or to which I am a regular contributor so I figured it was better to take it to this location rather than following the Be Bold directive in this instance. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 02:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Falerin, if I remember right, I picked up on this in the GA review I did for the article, and the issue was that the sources weren't consistent in their recommendations. If you have good-quality sources that are authoritative and give clear evidence-based recommendations please bring them. Zad68 02:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you looked at the refs in question? They do support the statement in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Review on critical care management of burns. JFW | T@lk 14:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)