Talk:Raynaud's disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Phenom vs Disease[edit]

I get this, but isn't it more properly called Raynaud's phenomenon? It's not a disease, it's a condition.
--Deb 17:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Raynaud's disease" gets more Google hits than "Raynaud's phenomenon", but I would agree that "phenomenon" is more correct. Whichever is chosen, the other should be a redirect.
--Rory 17:45, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Raynaud's disease is actually distinct from Raynaud's phenomenon. See current version of article.
Hfwd 10:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "distinct", and who you listen to. My dr. seemed to say that R's disease and R's phenom divide up a broader concept, along the current lines of Raynaud's disease#Disease vs. phenomenon which implies
Raynaud's has two subdivisions:
  1. Primary Raynaud's, aka Raynaud's disease
  2. Secondary Raynaud's, aka Raynaud's phenomenon
and if i understand the meaning of the term #1 is idiopathic and #2 is not.
Raynaud's phenomenon presently says
Raynaud's phenomenon has two subdivisions:
  1. Primary Raynaud's, aka Raynaud's disease
  2. Secondary Raynaud's, aka Raynaud's syndrome
and it says explicitly that term #1 is idiopathic, and clearly implies #2 is not
But Dorlands 27th edn. is crystal clear that (emphasis as in D)
When [Raynaud's phenomenon] is idiopathic or primary, it is termed Raynaud's disease.
--Jerzyt 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Rory and Deb both seem unaware of what (uh...) Hufwood(?) knows: that there is something whose proper name is "Raynaud's disease", and there is something else whose proper name is Raynaud's phenomenon. (So don't bother attempting exegesis of what "disease", "phenomenon", and "condition" should mean. And a Google-test is utterly inappropriate.) So neither can be a rdr to the other.
--Jerzyt 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

I have been going through the list of orthopaedic conditions and suggesting this template for Orthopaedic Conditions (see Talk:Orthopedic surgery)
Name
Definition
Synonyms
Incidence
Pathogenesis and predisposing factors
Pathology
Stages
Classification
Natural History/Untreated Prognosis
Clinical Features
Investigation
Non-Operative Treatment
Risks of Non-Operative Treatment
Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment
Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry)
Risks of Operative Treatment
Prognosis Post Operation
Complications
Management
Prevention
History
--Mylesclough 06:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reynaud's may be a manifestation of some orthopedic conditions (which IMO could explain it being on an orthopedic-conditions list), and IANAD, but Dorlands 27th edn. calls it "a ... vascular disorder", and it sounds to me like it may have some sort of underlying mechanism involving the nervous or humoral systems. I'd bet money that that template would be a bad mistake here.
--Jerzyt 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hereditary link ?[edit]

Is there really no strong scientific evidence of a hereditary link? I have it, my mother has it, my grandfather has it, and my greatgrandmother had it. I realise this is just a point example, but I'm just surprised there's no scientific evidence of a link...

This abstract of this study says that twin studies have identified a hereditary factor: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16609626 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.65.134 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 19 April 2008

Article does suggest "This form of Raynaud's is thought to be hereditary, although it is uncertain if it is actually genetic", and there is a OMIM link in the infobox. But I'll work in the ref you kindly found. David Ruben Talk 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

External links?[edit]

What's going on with the external links section of this page? We really don't need this many links, many of which are not good links. We should work them into the article as references, or do away with them, leaving only a few. I'm going to purge some of the less worthwhile ones. Chaldor (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to merge![edit]

Having looked up Raynaud's to find two pages (one called Raynaud's phenomenon, the other Raynaud's disease) I find it confusing and unnecessary to refer to the two overlapping articles. One article in which the difference between "phenomenon" and "disease" is made clear would be far better for most users. I notice that this has been discussed going back to 2004 - it's time to do something about it. Could someone with the necessary knowledge please make the merger? As for the title of the article (ref discussion over whether it should be merged under "Raynaud's phenomenon" or "Raynaud's disease") the logical answer is for these to both be redirects to just "Raynaud's". Meanwhile I hope no-one minds if I tag these pages... Best wishes to all editors. --Weydonian (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirect categorization[edit]

This redirect was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)