Talk:Prothrombin G20210A: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:42, 19 May 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prothrombin G20210A article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

A fact from Prothrombin G20210A appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 January 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that prothrombin G20210A carriers who take oral contraceptives are at a 15-fold increased risk of developing blood clots in their veins (venous thrombosis)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prothrombin G20210A.

Wikipedia

Physiology Unassessed Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Medicine: Hematology-oncology / Genetics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.

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 Prothrombin G20210A.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Blood type and prothrombin

I think there is a mistake in this article. As it is now it states "Behind O-blood type,[1] prothrombin G20210A is one of the most common genetic risk factors,...."

I ready the article cited and it says that "The other 3 moderately strong genetic factors are associated with an increase, directly or indirectly, of the procoagulant potential of the blood: factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20201A, and blood group non-O.

To me this means that those with blood type A, B or AB would be risk factors for thrombosis, not people with type O. I am not an expert on this but I think it needs to be looked at.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethalean (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault. Thank you for catching my error. I meant to say non- I'll fix that right now. Biosthmors (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expert needed throughout

Please do a diff from before and after my work today. The article contained references to 2-3x increased risks of thromboembolism, but this content was not in the main body in any fashion, and to the extent that risk information appeared, it was not 2-3x. Moreover, discussion of risks demands discussion of the occurence of this mutation in conjunction with Factor V Leiden, and statement of whether the risks refer to homozygous versus heterozygous presentations of each. In short, the lead was no accurate, as presented.

In addition, the Background section was created because the lead was too long and detailed.

As well, various edits were made to the oddly named Risk factors section, where new naming nomenclature suddenly appeared (UC to LC edit), and where sentences referring to an image that was not in this article, and speaking of the studies being "conversant" (made no sense) were removed.

In this section, and elsewhere, tags were added to poor or dead sources.

The call for Expert was added to check these edits, and for the further reaons appearing in the tag and in the edit summaries.

50.153.156.160 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]