From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.


"After the breakup of the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s, vaccination rates in its constituent countries fell so low that there was an explosion of diphtheria cases." DPT vaccine by no means can't prevent disease, because it contains toxoid, but not bacterium.I don't understand how this myth is spread. We should remove the link between vaccination rates and explosion of diphtheria cases from article.

That is nonsense. The first sentence says (read it carefully) that DPT is effective at preventing disease. Then it's followed by two sentences of complete rubbish. Vaccines using toxoids are very effective and very safe. Their only disadvantage (which is covered by the article) is the need for repetition throughout life (maybe every 10 years or so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srdau (talkcontribs) 09:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Information still missing[edit]

Article contains no information on CUTANEOUS diphtheria, an important form of infection independent from respiratory cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As an amateur I do not know the correct initial (or empirical) treatment for diphteria. Could anyone enlighten? JFW | T@lk 12:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just edited the history section. I'm surprised there was no mention of the vaccine, so I added that and a chart demonstrating the death rates recorded in the United States. I know it's messy, my apologies for being footnote impaired, hopefully someone who understood the wikipedia footnoting page will be along. Uncleosbert (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncleosbert - I'm sorry to see that your chart was withdrawn. Would you consider reinstating it? I'm very interested. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

wht part of the population those the dipheria[edit]

It is virtually non-existent in Western countries as a result of vaccination. In Eastern Europe it is more common at the moment, and affects the low socio-economic. JFW | T@lk 21:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

according to the Treatment[edit]

the treatment of case or carriers:

if diphtheria is strongly suspected clinically ; antitoxins should given immediately after bacteriologic specimen without waiting the results

1.serotherapy : single dose 20.000-100.000 Iμ is given I.M or I.V depending on the severity of the disease.

2.Penicillin or Erythromycin is given with antitoxic sera :

  -procain penicillin (25.000-50.000 μ kg/day) for children and 102 million with maximums 2gm/day for adults in two doses
  -Parental Erythromycin 40-50 mg/kg/day for 14 days


I removed the pronunciation from the article because it looked to me like an attempt at prescriptivism against the [pθ] pronunciation. I considered putting in both variants, but since there's dialectal (and theoretical) variation as to how to transcribe the second vowel, and since it's really not an irregular word that you'd need to be told the pronunciation for anyway, I decided it's better just to leave it out entirely. --Ptcamn 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Removed from Treatment section:

You shouldn't take any medications containing lysoliam in them if you have diptheria.

Reference? What is "lysoliam" referring to? Tearlach 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union did not break up in the 1980s. Please fix the data and cause of breakout of ditheria at the time in USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


What is the nature of the "pseudomembrane?" Is it a thick film of bacterial cells, or something secreted by the bacteria? Or is it some sort of defense mechanism created by the body? Why does it form a film? I would be interested if some kind medical person could add these details. -- (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The simplified version is, the pseudomembrane is a film buildup of the organism (Corynebacterium diphtheriae), combined with dead epithelial cells and dead WBCs.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

new learner[edit]

i am a student doing a project for health and i was assigned diphtheria as my infectuous disease.i know nothing about the topic and would appreciate help if you have any information on the topic you would like to share with me please leave a message!Mustanglearner93 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

more links[edit]

Seems like this article could link to "Jim"? (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

cardiac arrest[edit]

The article currently asserts

In addition, the hyper sensitivity of the larynx may cause cardiac arrest around the intubation

which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. An earlier version made more sense, but I couldn't quite follow where in the editing history this got changed or why; there may have been some good-faith change that was intended but didn't quite get implemented right. Anyone who can figure out what this is supposed to say, please fix it. --Trovatore (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


The phrase "is given to all school children" should be changed to "is reccomended for all school aged children" since it is a CDC reccomendation, but not something that ALL school children do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it as you suggested. Franklinjefferson (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


I belive that correct code is A36, not A30? Vedran12 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


This article is loaded with undefined jargon, making it inaccessible to casual readers, the vast majority of people who come here for information. I my opinion, this is the biggest failing of Wikipedia's technical, scientific, and medical articles. For instance, take the Mechanism section - it's virtually indecipherable. Authors: define as you go along! Provide the definition of a term in plain English the first time it appears and put the technical term in parenthesis or vice versa. Either way, a person can immediately understand the gist and keep reading.

Although links are very valuable by underscoring the multidimensional nature of Wikipedia and allowing readers to pursue more information if they choose, they are frequently a bane. A reader is forced into clicking a link in order to try to understand a term, then must click a link in the 2nd article to understand a term, and is soon ping-ponging all over Wikipedia until they quit in frustration or forget why they came here in the first place! That is a person who will bad-mouth WP to others as a resource (with cause!) and will never donate money for its upkeep.

In my strong opinion, the goal should be to keep the reader on the page, allowing them to jump only if they want to do so.

Back to the Mechanism section: what in the world is a "regulation subunit"? It remains completely undefined. There's not even a WP link because there's no WP article or definition for this obscure term. I tried a browser search for it and looked at three pages of results. It's used in them all, but likewise remains undefined. This page has the unsurprising glossary definition of "subunit", but nothing about how the "regulation" modifier alters the meaning - This is one small example of the failure of WP technical articles to its core audience.

Sad, but true. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarity to another webpage.[edit]

There are remarkable similarities in this article to "Diphtheria" - . Did one come first and inspire or inform the other or is this a coincidence? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that source is copied from us as are hundreds of others. Here is how you know
  1. They use the CDC dated May 3, 2013.
  2. We look at the Wikipedia article from then [1]
  3. Their content still matches ours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Something went wrong...[edit]

...and I hope someone familiar with the development of the article (or the topic) can fix it easily. In the third paragraph it says:

"These antibiotics may also be used for prevention in those who have been exposed diphtheria antitoxin." Then it rambles off into the next sentence,

"A surgical procedure known as a tracheostomy is sometimes needed to open the airway in severe cases." Which doesn't seem to mater much in a paragraph about prevention and treatment. I'm sure IVs are used, too, but there is no need to mention them, either, at this point. Huw Powell (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This bit was wrong "those who have been exposed diphtheria antitoxin" have corrected.
In most infections tracheostomy is nearly never needed. This one it maybe which is why mentioning the procedure is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


It could be useful to add more information on the transmission of Diphtheria. Knowing all the possible ways that the disease can be contracted could help prevent transimission.Joeshmo265 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC) It could be

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diphtheria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)