Talk:Puerperal fever

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

One[edit]

One sixth of women died of this? Or one sixth of the women who contracted this no died? (67.71.51.92 did not sign)yes that's right however ian muir invented or patented the way in which doctors today do much of the "pre-surgery" action, involving pawn.

Please visit http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html and 1/3 way through the article you will encounter an almost verbatim discussion. This article needs to give credit where it is due. (68.162.118.74 did not sign either)

Interesting report here: http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol12No3/infection.htm AlbertCahalan 19:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


Since medical students came directly from autopsies with soiled hands and instruments, was it not obvious that 'puerperal fever' is caused by conveyance to the pregnant woman of putrid particles derived from living organisms, through the agency of the examining fingers.

This sentence is written as an interrogative. Is it supposed to be on the Talk page or is it an unfinished addition to the article, a quote by a medical researcher? -SeaFox 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge from Postpartum fever[edit]

I have suggested that Postpartum fever be merged into this article. There isn't much there, and according to that article, it's just another word for Puerperal fever. This would best be done by someone here who's familiar with the topic.Spock of Vulcan (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical significance[edit]

The plague of physician caused puerperal fever from the 1600's through the 1800's, and how the knowledge of the cause and cure for it was suppressed by the physicians themselves, is one of the most significant events in medical history. It influenced/helped the creation of Germ theory and demonstrates that one of the most dangerous things in medicine is a physician with a closed mind. Today, the massive spread of fatal C Diff. infections in hospitals is still being caused by people who refuse to wash their hands. Leading the unsanitary once again: the doctors themselves, despite massive educational efforts.

Good point.Felann96 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the issue is historically important, this article should place some emphasis on the problematic impact the doctors had during that time period. Jjk (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Causal Organisms[edit]

I haven't found much data to substantiate the "Causal Organisms" section of this article. Additionaly, the citation stating that the primary causative organisms are "S. aureus" and "Staphyloccus spp." directs to the Endometrium page. That page has no mention of the aforementioned microbes. Ian Glenn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Bernard Rousseau[edit]

This article claims that she survived the infection, but Rousseau's biographical article claims she died of puerperal fever nine days after giving birth. Can someone please correct this discrepancy? 209.6.28.116 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Epidemiology[edit]

"Epidemiology is the study (or the science of the study) of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations." Definition from Wikipedia

The Epidemiology of Puerperal Fever as written here is most definitely NOT equal to the above definition. The section is in desperate need of a rewrite, by someone who understands epidemiology and maybe even can offer a bit of analysis. Right now it is an assemblage of disjointed facts. For all it contributes the entire section -- excepting the opening sentence and the paragraph on history, (the only real paragraph) -- would be better off deleted entirely and moved to the sandbox.

From the section:

Today in the United States, puerperal infection is believed to occur in between one and 8 percent of all deliveries. About three die from puerperal sepsis for every 100,000 deliveries. The single most important risk factor is Caesarean section.[6]

In the United Kingdom 1985-2005, the number of direct deaths associated with genital tract sepsis per 100,000 maternities was 0.40–0.85.[7]

The incidence of maternal deaths in the United States is 13 in 100,000.

"3 out of 100,000", and three sentences later "13 out of 100,000" for deaths in the U.S. One sentence is wrong, or at least there are two different studies with very different conclusions that deserve discussion. Separating them is the a line on U.K. deaths written by someone else about one specific type of death (with a death rate of less than 1 in 100,000).

And in this same mess is the sentence that begins with "The single most important risk factor". Setting aside the topic, such a line is an opening phrase of someone getting wound up for a fight, kind of a gotcha sentence. As an opening line of a discussion -- o.k., you have my attention. Here it is out of place. The separate section on Risk Factors cites a bunch of risk factors for all the different sources of Puerperal fever. If you want to have a fight over c-sections (the sentence topic) and expand on the ironies of how the technique has moved from being a life-saving surgery to a cause of death, go ahead and make it its own section. Here it is a distracting zinger.

And THEN is the closing paragraph about a U.K. study on maternal deaths. Someone has come up with a the number of deaths of 14%, which is extraordinarily wrong! Death from sepsis in the U.K. for 2006 to 2008 was 1.13 deaths per 100,000, which apparently is almost doubled from the previous study, but is still only about .001% -- ten thousand times smaller. (14% equal 14,000 deaths per 100,000).

And, the link cited for the U.K. study is dead. Here instead is a link to the executive summary in PDF form. The entire study can also be found and downloaded, but it is over 200 pages long. http://www.hqip.org.uk/assets/NCAPOP-Library/CMACE-Reports/7.-2011-BJOG-Centre-for-Maternal-and-Child-Enquiries-Executive-Summary.pdf

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)