Talk:Dermatology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology  (Rated B-class, High-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Shouldn't the "list of diseases" be separate from a page on what dermatology is? --zandperl 19:24, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All medical specialty pages follow this form, see also rheumatology and pulmonology. JFW | T@lk 09:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fine, but there are about 1500 different diagnoses in dermatology! It would be crazy to list them on a Wikipedia page. I suggest a list of the 10 most common diseases. Does anyone have incidence and/or prevalence data that can be used for this?Emmanuelm 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I eliminated the bit about skin cancer clinics in Australia being run by nondermatologists and am trying to clean up the grammer. Philiphughesmd 02:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated content?[edit]

The section "diagnosis" is almost identical to the same section under "Malignant melanoma". Shouldn't this content be in one place or the other, but not both? 24.215.235.48 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a reference to "Skin Deep" which is someone's personal website.Philiphughesmd 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection?[edit]

This page suffers from daily mindless vandalism. Would it help to have it {{sprotected}}? JFW | T@lk 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now sprotected it for a limited period of time. Obviously, if the vandalism recurs, I will extend this to progressively longer periods to stop mindless vandals destroying established encyclopedia content.
Is anyone planning some updates to this page? It could do with a lot less weasling and more well-sourced content from professional organisations. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless see also[edit]

The rashes and skin conditions actually links to "skin disease" which redirects to the this article's page. An article should probably not be in its own see also —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tossrock (talkcontribs) 06:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All-American Article[edit]

The dermatology article at present describes the situation in the USA: dermatologists there seem to have become specialised surgeons, with minimal training in general medicine, unlike the physicians they are in much of the rest of the world. NRPanikker (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could edit this article to make it better? kilbad (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, that hurts.... Just because dermatologists in the US can do more than a "punch" biopsy, that does not mean that they have "minimal training" in general medicine. What standard are you referring to. 80% if not more of most dermatologist's practice are medicine in nature. Having practiced family medicine for 4 years before dermatology, I can tell you that most of my colleagues are excellent general medicine doctors. --69.14.62.175 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is article exclusive to MDs? Worldwide Nurses and allied health professionals work and specialise in derm. In the Uk Nurse led derm clinics provide vast and essential coverage in the management of skin disease - why the protectionism? Additions made to include nurse and allied health contributions (which are substantial) are deleted - please justify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.52.51 (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Master regulator?[edit]

An interesting press release on EurekAlert: [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/osu-ro032409.php 'Master regulator' of skin formation discovered].

EurekAlert press releases are always interesting because they're written by science journalists. JFW | T@lk 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention of acne?[edit]

I noticed that Acne is not mentioned in this article, this subject should be included, or at least listed with acne treating procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUnit594 (talkcontribs) 11:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism / Efficacy Information[edit]

Do you think medical articles on WP should include information on to what extent the current practice is "Evidence-Based"? There is no critique in here on the effectiveness of modern dermatological practice and whether or not dermatology is practiced strictly according to sound science.Herbxue (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There would need to be secondary sources of high quality (see WP:MEDRS) before we could start saying anything about "crticism". See Wikipedia:Criticism for discussion about this. JFW | T@lk 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Extra Information About Approximate Salary[edit]

I noticed that the academic requirements to become a dermatologist are included; however, the approximate salary of these dermatologists is not included. Since the article describes different branches and skills of a dermatologist, I think an approximate salary would be relevant for each skill, so that one could see how dermatologists are ranked by salary. For example, "Would a dermatologist who specializes in cosmetic dermatology make more than a dermatologist that specializes in dermatopathology?" Alanacrabb (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is highly dependent on country and subspecialty. This could only be discussed if reliable secondary sources could be found. JFW | T@lk 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dermatopathology[edit]

Over the last 24h an IP editor 185.27.218.3 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added content to the effect that most dermatopathologists are dermatologists by background, or that indeed they should be. Being in Europe I have no idea whether this is factually true in the United States, or whether there is a professional society that has a viewpoint to that effect. In Europe, dermatopathology is a subspecialty of pathology. Therefore, I don't think we can claim that most dermatopathologists are (or should be) dermatologists. The same editor has made the same changes on dermatopathology. JFW | T@lk 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)