|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chickenpox article.|
|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 Chickenpox.
|WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Translation||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|Chickenpox has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Viruses||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
The statement that it usually confers immunity needs explanation. I personally had it 3 times before my early teens though only doctors confirmation of its presense by 3 previously un-noted spots plus cough, made me aware of what final minor attack was. (Doctor was treating my sister when I wandered by coughing and muttering about feeling feverish). What is more significant however is that next sentence specifically states that virus can be reactivated. Not much immunity there then! JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In regards Pathophisology section first paragraph
The last sentence of the first paragraph is saying citation needed. I am a bit unsure about the need for a citation there as the three conditions listed are links to other wikipedia articles which are more than clear (and cited) about the relationship between the virus and the mentioned VZV reactiviation diseases. In addition, at least one of the mentioned diseases turns up later in its own section later in the article and is cited there.
Am I way off base here? or am I correct in suspecting that a citation is not required at that point?
I want to get a better feel for standards and practices in these matters.
Also in this section, is the sentence about the number of cases resembling number of people born important? Is there actually some sort of link between the number born and number infected? There is an implied relationship being made that I don't think is justified, since most people infected are not infants. Perhaps there is a better way to word this that avoids such a correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor7sakura (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In Infection in pregnancy and neonates he following lines "The implications of primary VZV infection in pregnancy for the mother and for the fetus vary with the period of gestation. For the mother, the risk of adverse effects is greatest in the third trimester, whereas for the fetus the risk is greatest in the first and second trimesters." have been directly taken from Heuchan, AM; Isaacs, D (2001 Mar 19). "The management of varicella-zoster virus exposure and infection in pregnancy and the newborn period. Australasian Subgroup in Paediatric Infectious Diseases of the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.". The Medical journal of Australia 174 (6): 288–92. PMID 11297117. Check date values in:
Reason: I believe that the way to vary the presentation of this text is extremely limited.
I feel that this would not be considered as a copyright violation. In case anybody does, please take the pain to modify the text as deemed fit, rather than deleting the text.DiptanshuTalk 09:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have changed the text in question to: "During pregnancy the dangers to the fetus associated with a primary VZV infection are greater in the first six months. In the third trimester, the mother is more likely to suffer from the adverse effects of the infection." Graham Colm (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Much valuable information can be added from the following resource:
- Heuchan, AM; Isaacs, D (2001 Mar 19). "The management of varicella-zoster virus exposure and infection in pregnancy and the newborn period. Australasian Subgroup in Paediatric Infectious Diseases of the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.". The Medical journal of Australia 174 (6): 288–92. PMID 11297117. Check date values in:
|date=(help) and the references it cites.
- "breastfeeding and isolation if maternal chickenpox". GPnotebook. and "Chickenpox, pregnancy and the newborn". doi:10.1136/dtb.2005.43969.
- Yes, that's quite common. (Disclaimer: we can't help you with a diagnosis. If you think you might have a disease, please see a doctor.) Dbfirs 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Not to be confused with - My Opinion
I'm no genius, but I occassionally confuse varicella (chickenpox) with variola (small pox). I think the names are similar enough to justify a disclaimer at the top. (Especially since Not to be confused with fowlpox" seems very very unlikely). If I'm not in the small minority, someone should add it, imho.188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)