Talk:Scleroderma

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanket incorrect

This article needs to be moved to "systemic sclerosis". The article is getting confused between the term scleroderma which is a symptom, and the disease, systemic sclerosis. I know scleroderma is used sometimes to refer to systemic sclerosis, but this is mostly a lay term or an incorrect term which is used by professionals. Unless it means scleroderma disorders, or primary scleroderma, which the article doesn't seem to actually mean. Source: uptodate 128.250.5.245 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Scleroderma (skleer-oh-DUR-muh) is a symptom but a group of rare, progressive diseases that involve the hardening and tightening of the skin and connective tissues — the fibers that provide the framework and support for your body. Need to do some research yourself before you put down somebody elses research. TSR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.90.229.42 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article, published in the last month, using the term "scleroderma" to refer to "a heterogeneous group of autoimmune fibrosing disorders." Not a symptom thereof. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738081X13000114 JoshNarins (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify

I moved the following text to here, because it needs clarification before reinsertion: Does ≥10 to 20 years mean age, time from diagnosis or something else? What is the fraction of scleroderma patients that develop pulmonary arterial hypertension? Without that fact, the numbers are not useful. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis is good for limited cutaneous scleroderma, except for <10% of those who develop pulmonary arterial hypertension ≥10 to 20 years. In such cases, 5-year survival is 90%, 10-year survival 75%.

This problematic sentence is no longer in the article. The prognosis section looks basically right to me, but I do remember one paper that said limited patients die 1-4%/year, while diffuse is 7-10%/year. JoshNarins (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why does "acrosclerosis" redirect here?

I want to know what "acrosclerosis" is. It redirects here but does not occur in the page text. Is it a synonym, or what? 86.139.166.113 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullet points

Fuse809 compliments on the expansion. Can I make a case for reducing the bullet point lists that are currently in place? Tables can help, or turning the content into prose. It is preferable stylistically. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to, go ahead, I personally think it's fine the way it is but if you want a change feel free. Fuse809 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge with systemic scleroderma

I'm confused as to what the difference is with this other article. There should be a least a line of disambiguation at the beginning of each article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_scleroderma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.66.220 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the cause known or unknown?

In the current version, the introduction ends with a paragraph starting "The cause of scleroderma is unknown." However, in the Cause section, the cause is defined as "genetic and environmental factors". Has the cause been determined definitively? Even having looked at the linked research articles supporting known and unknown, it's unclear to me. If that's the same for others of you, how should it be reworded?

Akwhitacre (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Vitamin connections

Both vitamin D [1] and the active form of vitamin B6 [2][3] (presumably as P-5-P) are implicated in autoimmune diseases. --Acyclic (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Overlap with systemic sclerosis - separation insufficient

As a prfessional I get confused by this article. If this scleroderma is a group of hetorogenous diseasaes, so it should just name the various diseases here and give a quick overlock. For me it goes much to deep into details and overlaps mostly with systemic sclerosis. But systemic sclerosis is here only mentioned in the classificationsection, not as a entitiy on its own!? Secondly, primary billiary sclerosis, which hat pruritus, but not thickening of the skin on its own, is among the differential diagnosis. I really dont see the point in this article and I suggest to differentiate it better from other similar articles, to get a real value out of it. Thanks and sorry for embarassing myself (obviously not a native english speaker). --84.74.58.162 (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the American college of rheumatology mixes the terms Source American college of Rheumatology so I guess it would be great for readers, to get a clear separation of the terms, groups and entities. --84.74.58.162 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the ICD 11 doesnt know a group like Scleroderma, therefore I suggest to shorten this article, beacause its potpurry LINK ICD 11. --84.74.58.162 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"Scleroderma(medicine)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Scleroderma(medicine) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 5#Scleroderma(medicine) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)