Talk:Prothrombin G20210A
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. |
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:
|
Physiology Unassessed Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Medicine: Hematology-oncology / Genetics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
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)
- 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)
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.
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Unassessed Physiology articles
- Mid-importance Physiology articles
- Physiology articles about blood
- WikiProject Physiology articles
- Start-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- Start-Class hematology-oncology articles
- Unknown-importance hematology-oncology articles
- Hematology-oncology task force articles
- Start-Class medical genetics articles
- Unknown-importance medical genetics articles
- Medical genetics task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages