Talk:Chemotherapy-induced acral erythema

	Medicine portal 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 Dermatology task force.

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 Chemotherapy-induced acral erythema.

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

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article categorization[edit]

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of fingerprints[edit]

Shoul PMID 17470879 be mentioned? It's a single case report, but it has received quite a bit of attention in the press. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

This reads like a journal article from JAMA. It could do with being redrafted into a more general syle suitable for a lay audience - ie. the target Wikipeida audience. I would also suggest that it be retitled. Only a medic would look for "chemotherapy induced acral erythema". Suggest we retitle it as Hand-Foot syndrome, which is probably how most people (esp. sufferers) would recognise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.128.81 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sections that are lifted directly from Cancer.Net. Although the two quotations are disclosed upfront, I think the quotations are too long to be acceptable. It escapes me how the numbering appears as if it were a bibliographic reference, which it is not.--Gciriani (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]