Talk:Distal hereditary motor neuropathy type V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from medical editor[edit]

Hello @Rebainbridge: this is an interesting topic but even for a physician (internist) the precise classification is not quite clear. The HSMN page lists the different forms, but I can't figure out whether there is a non-distal form of HSMN5 or not, and where the name "Charcot-Marie-Tooth" comes in.

I would recommend adding hyperlinks to other related articles mentioned in the text.

More importantly, I try to use secondary sources (ideally following guidance from WP:MEDRS) as much as possible. This cannot always be achieved with rare conditions, but this is usually preferable over research papers.

Happy to help further! JFW | T@lk 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfdwolff and Ozzie10aaaa: You are the two editors who commented on this draft. I'm now asking for specific comments about the draft's definition of CMT. Details are given in the comments section of the draft itself. Also, any other comments you have will be welcome. Thanks again for your assistance. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @NewYorkActuary: and @Rebainbridge:. Happy for this to go live. There's still some work required but the article is now Start-class and approaching C-class. It will require a {{Infobox medical condition}} which includes the OMIM link currently in "External links". JFW | T@lk 21:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfdwolff: Thanks very much for the prompt assistance. I've replaced the external link with the infobox. But as to my original concern, am I correct in understanding that Charcot's triad and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease are the same thing and that it makes sense for the draft to be linking to them interchangeably when speaking of "CMT"? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Sorry, I have only just noticed this message! Charcot's triad is unrelated to CMT. Charcot lent his name to quite a few things! JFW | T@lk 10:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfdwolff: Thanks for getting back to me. As you can see in the article, I resolved my quandary simply by not using the second link. It's good to know that this was the right choice. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]