Talk:Mumps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (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.
 
WikiProject Viruses (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
 
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 – January 2006


Potential Sabatoge[edit]

First Line: "Mumps can be caught by sexual intercourse also vaginas can get infected"

Needs to be removed/edited. Zorglemeister 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a line "run its course before wanking". I changed it to receding. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.204.28 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Epidemic[edit]

MMWR has it: the UK has an epidemic[1]. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

US News media is reporting outbreaks in

  • Ohio

[2]

  • Oklnhoma

[3]

  • other states

User:AlMac|(talk) 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The bit in MMWR makes me think the number of patients in UK must have been less than 100k+ as the article states.

Year UK Cases from MMWR [4]
2003
2004 16,367
2005 56,390

Heathhunnicutt 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In this VOA article, the reporter seems to have spoken to the CDC when referencing the "100k" figure. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that table above and extrapolating:

Year Cases "notified" from MMWR report
2003 no data
2004 16,367
2005 56,390
April 2006 (Extrap.) 18,797
Total 91,554 (estimated)

I did change the article text to read "around" 100k cases in UK. Heathhunnicutt 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)



University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee[edit]

What is the source of the citation of confirmed cases in 2006 at UWM? As of April 21, Wisconsin's Public Health Department says there are currently 17. See: http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/News/PressReleases/2006/04242006mumps.pdf

Thread relating to mumps edits[edit]

Archived

Example outbreak history table[edit]

Here is something like the "outbreak table" I had in mind to summarize the current and ongoing outbreak.

Date Iowa[1] Wisconsin
20 March 2006 N.D. 1
14 April 2006 600+[5] N.D.
19 April 2006 14
2 May 2006 1,487[6]

Heathhunnicutt 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on removing the current info or just having the table alongside? The other information might be useful too. --Joshuagross 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The current info seems a little too verbose. I wonder if it merits its own page already. I am hoping someone else will take this idea and trim the section down to a table-based summary or perhaps a map or a graph. If I get more spare time, I will work on the genetics or the vaccine article. Heathhunnicutt 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I can't believe I forgot this for so long. If no one else wants to handle this, I will. Joshuagross (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequenced?[edit]

Is the (USA) strain identified and compared to previous ones, yet? Midgley 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's genotype G. [7]. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Other cases[edit]

A 40-something friend of mine in Dallas TX just got the mumps (2006-09-07) . His doctor said it's only the second adult case he's ever seen in his entire career. — Loadmaster 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The US average is about 250 cases per year and plenty of adults are in there. So although not in large cases, it occurs regularly, with episodic outbreaks (~6400 in 2006). I'm reading this article because we have 3 suspected cases (ages 2, 13, and 27) in my practice in the past month. So to echo other's statements, we don't need to be listing every small case in the main article.--192.77.126.50 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Next year's article[edit]

When 2007 rolls around, is there a plan to move all the 2006 outbreak statistics to their own page (perhaps: Mumps (2006)), and continuing for each subsequent year? This would at least provide a historical trail of data. — Loadmaster 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

US Outbreaks[edit]

Is it required that the article contains such an extensive documentation of statewide outbreaks of the virus in the US? I find it strange that there is no refernce to Maurice Hilleman on the page. --EGGman64 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Research (Treatments)[edit]

Single reports of possibly interesting lines of research are far more the stuff of Medline, Nature, Science and the Lancet than they are encyclopaedic. When they become regular treatments, complete a clinical trial with a clear outcome or otherwise become confirmed is the time to add them. WP is not Medline. Midgley 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why[edit]

Why is there a list of all mumps outbreaks since 2006. What possible purpose could this serve.--Notker Balbulus 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been asked a number of times before, and I agree. Major outbreaks would be notable, but this is just listcruft coming well under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (#9 Long and sprawling lists of statistics). At the least, it should be retired to a separate article. Anyone else think so? Tearlach 11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As I proposed above, either the list should stay but as a separate article of its own (e.g., "Mumps cases (2006)"), or it should be removed entirely (except for very large/notable epidemics). — Loadmaster 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest splitting this into a subarticle, like Mumps/outbreak2006 or something less silly/inflamatory. I noticed that the most recent edit today is someone updating the current/ongoing outbreak. Maybe by splitting this, it can move to [wikinews.org] or some similar site? Heathhunnicutt 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest moving all US related stuff into another article and just reference an American total for 2006 at least keep the article from looking so centric. The difference between heading sizes in my browser (IE 7) is not enough to make individual US state listings any less visually important than the actual other countries. Alternately, turf the whole thing other than major outbreaks. A major outbreak is news and possible encyclopaedic when it's passed. A minor outbreak is quickly contained. I doubt anyone will use a mumps outbreak from 2006 to decide where to attend university in 2007. Most of these will already contained.--216.16.239.66 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Source(s) re: Dalhousie?[edit]

Curious to know where the figure of "350 confirmed cases" came from in the Dalhousie University portion. Dalhousie is claiming only 82 cases as of 7/26/07 (http://healthservices.dal.ca/Mumps%20Prevention/mumps_dal.php). No source cited...


Mumps Comparison image before and after[edit]

The article currently contains this " before and after mumps" image. Is this a valid/useful pair of images? Picture on the left is smiling, person on the right is not and is also angling their face up. It almost looks like they are two completely different people - and it's not at all clear whether that's due to mumps or because they are different people!

Could we get an image that comes with some kind of source and whose settings are more controlled?

99.225.148.19 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These images are misleading because of the extreme differences in light, lens distortion and camera angle. It creates an exaggerated effect, and questionable authenticity. I suggest removal. Richardsidler (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You would be hard pressed to find equal lighting and angles on a medical photograph in the acute disease phase. Also, mumps can be pretty impressive in some cases. We should use these until there are better ones available.--MartinezMD (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too, have difficulty seeing any difference between the before and after images. Sure, they differ strongly, but I can't see what mumps has to do with it. 78.42.178.246 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

what is the point?

in one photo he is smiling, then he isn't. for a start they should be labelled before and during an infection of mumps, but no symptoms can be seen in the second pic.

the photos are useless and unhelfpful, delete them i say.

Doktordoris (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus with all of us, I removed the image. A better during and after photo would demonstrate the marked swelling that can occur. that is the point. MartinezMD (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology?[edit]

Does anyone know where the name comes from? What do you suppose a single "mump" would be?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mump is a now obsolete word, of which the pertinent meaning seems to be to grimace (and used as a substantive noun, the grimace so produced). The word could also mean "to mumble" and "to assume a demure or melancholy expression". The first use of the word mumps to mean the disease it now refers to was in 1598. The word mumps is today generally construed as singular. As for etymology of mump - it doesn't seem like anyone is too sure, but some think it may be imitative of the mumbling it describes. - Nunh-huh 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of cases[edit]

Why on earth is there a long list of cases? I'm contemplating removing it wholesale. WLU (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to list of modern mumps outbreaks, it's not a great title, but it's weird to have such a long section. What's the point, what's encyclopedic about a list of news stories? WLU (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally. And to User:GeertjePeertje, at the time, the news links were delayed and hadn't hit Google until a few hours later (I did look). More importantly, it was not NPOV and seemed inflammatory. WLU cleaned it up nicely - thank you. --MartinezMD (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical Reference[edit]

is it worth mentioning that in my youth, at least (i.e. the 1950's), pre-adolescent mumps infection in males was considered a good thing. this, of course because of the risk of orchitis and resultant sterility if the disease were contracted after puberty. parents held 'mumps parties', where all the male child's male friends were invited with the specific intention of their becoming infected.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Same is true for Varicella (Chicken Pox) in my youth. There were often parties held at the home of an infected child to contract the illness early in a child's life.--MartinezMD (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
When we were kids, my sister caught chickenpox. Our mother, who was a doctor, encouraged my sister and me to spend time together, so I would catch the disease and get it over with. I didn't catch it (and still have never had it), but my mother got it, and suffered from shingles for weeks afterwards. Serve her right! DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reyes Syndrome risk[edit]

I have edited and corrected an assertion under the "Treatment" heading, because it only pointed to Aspirin conterindication for use in young children (!!!), for risk of Reye's Syndrome.

Anyone unfamiliar with the issue should read (should have read) the Wikipedia article on Reye's syndrome, where a specific counter indication for children and adults under 19 yers is mentioned (not just small kids).

Anyone unfemmiliar with medical terminology shold NOT edit treatment related articles.

Szjanos (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lancet retraction[edit]

The Lancet has retracted Wakefield's research regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Someone better at editing than I should make the proper changes in Prevention text. retraction DOI reference: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.6.215 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspirin / ASA[edit]

People in many countries may not be aware that there are places, Canada, for example (where I live), where the word "Aspirin" is a commercial trademark, owned by the Bayer company. Using this word as if it were a generic name for the drug can lead, and has led, to legal procedings. In Canadian drugstores, "Aspirin" is sold, but is always made by Bayer. The same compound made by other manufacturers is also sold, but the packages are labelled "ASA", which is short for "acetylsalicylic acid", the chemical name of the compound. Canadians are used to this situation, and normally talk about "ASA", rather than "Aspirin".

Wikipedia tries to avoid misusing trademarks, so I have edited this article to replace "Aspirin" with "ASA". I've linked this to "Acetylsalicylic acid", but this gets redirected to the page called "Aspirin"! More work is obviously needed to get rid of this trademark.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not looking to start an edit war, but the official Wikipedia article is titled Aspirin. MartinezMD (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
But should it be? DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
WP doesn't rule the world. "Aspirin" is still a registered trademark, and misuse of it can have legal consequences. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it cannot when it is used here. Please don't pontificate about stuff you clearly have no idea about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you an expert on Canadian law? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't have to be. WP's servers are in the US, and US law is controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ CDC (2006). "Exposure to mumps during air travel--United States, April 2006". MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 55 (14): 401–2. PubMed.