|Burn has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.|
|Burn has been listed as a Natural sciences good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: May 19, 2013. ( ).
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical 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 Burn.
|WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Translation||(Rated GA-class, Top-importance)|
Removal of 5th and 6th degree burn?
- 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.
Zad6814:50, 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)
- And with just a bit more searching I can find a pretty authoritative medical source that defines such quite clearly, "The Manual of Surgery" reference http://www.manual-of-surgery.com/content/0057-Burns-and-Scalds.html, Not sure where and how to add them to this article at present but they should probably be restored. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 02:50, 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)
Strangely ambivalent statement and possibly inconsistent
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.
Zad6802:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)