|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eclampsia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|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 Eclampsia.
|WikiProject Medicine / Cardiology / Translation||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Women's Health||(Rated C-class)|
This term occurs in the article, but it is not defined in the article. There is also no link to a definition. A search for "hypoperfusion" in wikipedia leads to an article on ischemia. It appears that they are synonyms, but I don't have the required medical knowledge. Ileanadu (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think what some of the above entries are getting at is that these women apparently had no prior symptoms, or didn't recognize them, which is contradicted by the statement that:
"rarely does eclampsia occur without preceding preeclamptic symptoms"
There appears to be a typo error at the end of this section. It reads: "Most cases result of aggressive use of crystalloid solutions for intravascular volume expansion." I am unable to guess at the intended meaning, so I am not sure how to correct it. Can anyone else figure it out?
Eclampsia in Animals
Is this worth mentioning here? Hypocalcaemia in dogs is referred to as eclampsia/peuperal tetany when it occurs due to their lactation (doesn't usually happen at birth like it does in people). Brionyvet (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Edits to talk page
Deleted several personal stories from this talk page. Please see in the directions above, this is not a forum. It is for discussion about editing the article. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Convulsions section edit needed
In the Convulsions section, there appears to be an incomplete sentence:
Prevention of convulsion is usually done using magnesium sulphate. The idea to use Mg2+ for the management of eclamptogenic toxemia dates from before 1955 when it was tested and published—the serum The international MAGPIE study, of 2004, evaluated the long-term implications of the magnesium sulphate therapies.
Note that something needs to follow "the serum"; "The international MAGPIE study..." begins a new sentence. It's also unclear what was tested and published—what does the "it" refer to? The idea? Very confusing; more clarity would be helpful. I have tried to find relevant information; I think what is being referenced is the serum test for protein in the urine, but I don't have the necessary knowledge to complete the sentence. I will check the edit history to see if part of the sentence was inadvertently removed accidentally. —D'Ranged 1 talk 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I went back through the edit history and found the missing text. The editor was attempting to remove dosage information, per MEDMOS, but deleted far too much information. It makes sense now, but someone with more knowledge might want to check it. I would caution against removing the information on therapeutic serum levels; these are not doses of magnesium sulfate (which is the information that has been removed), but serum levels that lead to specific symptoms. I also deleted an instance of "convulsions and seizures", since a previous editor noted that they are medically the same thing. They intimated that "convulsions" was the medical term, but I found "seizure" used widely in the article, including a link to a separate article on Tonic-clonic seizures, so I removed "convulsions" and left "seizures". If someone objects, it would be good to use the same terminology throughout, in my opinion.—D'Ranged 1 talk 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Archtypically Bad Article
This article needs a serious re-write. It suffers badly from a disease common on wikipedia: it is written by experts *for* experts. Wikipedia is an *encyclopedia*, not a medical textbook. One should not need to already have a degree in medicine to understand the article. I mean, seriously, what lay person coming to this article is already going to be familiar with words and phrases such as "pathophysiological process", "toxemic changes", "crystalloid solutions for intravascular volume expansion", "immunologically mediated", "vasoactive agents", "altered atrioventricular conduction", or "intubation and mechanical ventilation as adjuvants"? Seriously? If I were a pregnant woman and my doctor started decribing my conditions in such terms, I'd run out and get another doctor! "adjuvants"??? What percent of the population do you think knows the word "adjuvant"??? I'm not even talking about the great unwashed masses. What percentage of *Harvard* graduates do you think knows the word "adjuvant"??? Stop showing off how smart you are and write an article that a reasonably educated person can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your comments in my view are spot on. I will begin to mold the article toward the general biology high school student, who I believe should be the prototype target for all Wikipedia science and medicine articles. I would like your feedback when I am finished: it will take awhile. Also, I would urge you to choose and use a Username so I can relate to you as a person not a number. Then become an editor! You can start by looking up the definition of adjuvant and replacing it with a simpler term that you choose. Incidentally, the "you" you are addressing is actually 224 people who have made 422 revisions over 12 years. I just spent 15 minutes editing and am now the number 6 top all-time editor by number of edits! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)