Talk:Primary immunodeficiency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This looks like a useful resource: J Mol Diagn JFW | T@lk 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Temporary removal[edit]

The following were previously listed, but I could not place them in the system that I've unashamedly borrowed from Lim2004. I will reintroduce them when I can place them:

JFW | T@lk 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Better classification[edit]

Just after using Lim2004 I discovered that a 2005 consensus conference has done more work in classifying the primary immunodeficiencies: doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1347. I will have to read the second paper and decide how to make the section accessible to readers and still reflect the latest classification. JFW | T@lk 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Myeloperoxidase deficiency is not included in the 2005 consensus. In contrast, it mentions complement deficiency (table VIII) and hyper-IgE syndrome. Dunno about Vici syndrome. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm now finished working the Notarangelo document into this article. Do we need more clinical descriptions of every syndrome? Or perhaps its mode of inheritance? JFW | T@lk 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New classification[edit]

In 2007, the 2005 classification was updated (doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.053). Just as I was about to start looking at this, I discovered that there is a 2009 classification! doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.10.013 is just that.

I think I ought to drop the committee an email to ask if they have submitted the most recent classification yet. Apparently they meet every two years (link). JFW | T@lk 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


... are common and may arise due to autoimmune or other mechanisms doi:10.1182/blood-2014-06-583260 JFW | T@lk 22:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Big hat, no cattle (er... big list, no content)[edit]

Looks like this article was a one-man show until now. I propose that we desist going down the path of more and more list-element entries, which are available in the cited sources to interested research professionals (few and far between), and focus on text accessible to the ordinary (high school or college educated) reader. As a first step, maybe one we can agree on, move the condition names into an appendix, with a hide/show box, default hidden, to focus attention on the article, not the list. Maybe, we move the entire list into another article, a list-article, like I've seen some other places. The remainder of the article is anemic, and we need to work on that.Sbalfour (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)