Talk:Human granulocytic anaplasmosis

Medicine: Hematology-oncology 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
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 (assessed as 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 Human granulocytic anaplasmosis.

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

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

note

Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis is an outdated term from a period of time when the causal bacterium of the disease was in the genus "Ehrlichia." The infection has been re-named to "Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis" as the genus of the causal bacterium was changed to "Anaplasma." In addition, Ehrlichia chaffiensis is a distinctly different organism from Anaplasma phagocytophilum.

Recent papers have referred to HGE as "Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis" to reflect this change in classification.

The terminology section is confusing here. The Olano et al paper (source #6), which is cited as supporting the idea that multiple species cause Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis (HGE), actually deals only with Human monocytic ehrlichiosis (HME). Originalname4 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrlichia equi and Ehrlichia phagocytophilum have been reclassified as Anaplasma phagocytophilum.Originalname4 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge with article on Ehrlichiosis

There is also an article on Ehrlichiosis. This article could be merged with, or at least be disambiguated from and refer this other article. P.S. There also seems to be an article on canine ehrlichiosis Thomas.Hedden (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

It'd be great to see an image of a peripheral blood smear showing some neutrophils infected with Anaplasma phagocytophilum. If anyone has any pictures of this, please add them!

FYI - I checked the free image tool, and it gives a hit on a different, but similar disease, Human monocytotropic ehrlichiosis, or HME. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm 2015evolution7 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) I edited parts of this article for a class, I organized to body and added a photo. Feel free to add and edit this article to improve it. 2015evolution7 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

There is sufficient amount of clinical relevance of this organism. The treatment and prevention segment could use tips to actually prevent the disease and where and how it is commonly transmitted. Moreover, the article needs information on the evolution of the organism. Try looking up articles on the genus Anaplasma as opposed to just Human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Also try and look up articles on the specific organism as opposed to the disease caused by it. Doing more general research on article can give the article a strong back-bone. Spreetycakes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions replies

@2015evolution7 thank you for adding a picture! The symptoms are well organized now, so that was very helpful, too.

@Spreetycakes these were good tips. I changed information about the clinical studies to be more of an overview, and added more information about the evolutionary aspect of the disease. I applied your tip about searching for more well rounded articles, and it seemed to help with overall knowledge of Anaplasmosis.

In regards to my professor's comments, I tried to streamline the information about the first diagnosis as best I could. I did end up changing around some of the citations, because they were in the middle of the sentences, not at the end of each sentence. I also found that I didn't cite each sentence, so I had to go through and make sure I was using the correct source for each sentence. I also added information about statistics and added what I could find evidence on about the evolution of Anaplasmosis. Anon330 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Suggestions

Diagnosis Section: Good job describing the clinical similarities between HGA and other tick-borne illnesses. Also good job providing information that PCR is useful for diagnosis. If I could provide one suggestion here it would be to provide a few other methods for diagnosing HGA and distinguishing it from other tick-borne illnesses.

Treatment and Prevention: This section is very well organized and provides relevant information to the treatment of HGA. Also, good job providing links on some of the terms that are more complicated and not commonly known, such as rifampin and teratogenic. One suggestion for this section is that it provides relatively no information on prevention of HGA. While it is stated that there is no vaccine available, you could provide more information on other ways of prevention and maybe information on whether or not a vaccine is being worked on.

Ecology and Epidemiology: Good job explaining how A. phagocytophilum is transmitted to humans, and the various hosts that it encounters. One recommendation I have is to keep your formatting consistent throughout this section. While most of the vectors and organisms are italicized, there are a few, such as I. ricinus and I. persulcatus that are not. I suggest italicizing these and making sure that all of the organisms are also italicized. Also, I would reword the sentence in the second paragraph that contains, "A tick that has a blood meal from and infected reservoir become infected themselves" to, "A tick that has a blood meal from an infected reservoir becomes infected themselves."

Statistics: In the first sentence, you say that HGA is evolving at a very fast rate due to the increased incidence rate in the past few decades. Could there be other explanations for this observation? Potentially the population size of the ticks that carry HGA has increased? I would suggest looking into this topic further and providing more explanation to how this is evidence of evolution.

Comments by SLUlax414 (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies and new changes

Talk:SLUlax414 thank you! I really appreciate all of the comments. I really focused one aspect of this article, so how you broke it down was very helpful. I made the changes that you suggested and I think that it improved my article.

The changes that I made were mainly to the MSP section and to the Statistics sections. I corrected and added information that I thought was useful and helpful. I also changed around some of the grammar that was confusing to read, and condensed sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon330 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]