Talk:Skin tag

Spam?

Subsection "Natural Treatment": to purchase go to ... Isn't that just spam? Why is this allowed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.45.217 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the obvious spam, it was uncited and wasn't statement of fact, just an obvious ad. Aeonjoey (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of lead section strongly disputed

The lead states: "An acrochordon (also known as a cutaneous papilloma, cutaneous tag, fibroepithelial polyp, fibroma molluscum, fibroma pendulum, papilloma colli, skin tag, or soft fibroma". IANAD, but this is highly suspicious to me. "Papilloma", "polyp", "molluscum", and "fibroma" are not interchangeable terms. Two sources are provided at the end of this, but it is entirely unclear which term is sourced by what reference, if any of them are at all. This needs to be critically re-written, with every alternative term cited to a specific source, and those sources checked for reliability and for whether they actually say what it is claimed that they say. As an example of how bad this is, please see Molluscum, which makes it very clear that molluscum is a viral infection, which has nothing to do with skin tags. Similarly, papillomas are viral, while fibromas have nothing to do with viruses at all. Finally, the term polyp only applies to abnormal growths on mucous membranes, which again has jack to do with skin tags. It is very obvious that the lead section of this article is confused, inadequately sourced, and spreading misinformation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the French Wikipedia has an interwiki link in this article to fr:Molluscum pendulum, which suggests either that an alternative term is missing from this article or (more likely) that the interwiki link is incorrect. Also, the bulk of the material in this article is either entirely unsourced assertion, or improperly sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added references for skin tag, cutaneous skin tag and fibroepithelial polyp (Medline Plus). The rest, I believe, are other phenomena and have been inaccurately lumped into this article. Jivetalkingbot (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Though only a geologist, it appears to me one must first decide whether the sentence objected to is supposed to be a medical statement or a common, lexicographical statement. My experience has been that one's family physician (where one hears these terms) is more frequently wrong than not in skin diagnosis. The vulgate term 'skin tag' is probably the most common term of self-diagnosis. I shouldn't think that medical terms have synonyms, so I read the first sentence as a list of common terms used by laymen and of medical terms mistakenly used by one's family physician. (Mine uses 'looks like a skin tag' and leaves the diagnosis to a dermatologist.) The problem might easily be fixed by just recasting the sentence. Geologist (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • as a practicing primary care doctor I'm actually a little taken aback by your statement that family doctor's are incorrect >50% of the time regarding skin diagnosis. I personally don't know any family physicians or primary care doctor's who would call a skin tag by any of those terms. I could see how a small skin tag might be confused with a small molluscum but that is not to say that a skin tag is also referred to as a molluscum. In fact, I was completely unaware of the term acrochordon until today... to me they are simply skin tags. In my Dermatology text they are also referred to as "cutaneous papilloma and soft fibroma" in addition to acrochordon and skin tag. I think people refer to an encyclopedia to learn what things are... not what people mistakenly might call them. I would remove any term not used by professionals in reference to skin tags.--Tgottsdo (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative terms checked and sourced. SilkTork *^YES! 09:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can find no reference that describes large skin tags "bursting" under pressure. If noone can provide a referene then I would remove that sentence.--Tgottsdo (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed.SilkTork *^YES! 09:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also question whether fibroepithelial polyp is synonymous with the topic of this article. FEP occur also on mucosae: GI tract, respiratory tract, mouth, genital mucosae... I think these are common lesions to be found on mucosae... certainly when Fibroepithelial polyp is located on a mucous membrane this is not synonymous with "skin tag"... Lesion (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Baking soda and castor oil

Currently, the line discussing using baking soda and castor oil to "dissolve" the skin tag references Edward Cayce, a self proclaimed psychic, and cites the website of recorder player as the source. I am deleted this entry until it is better sourced. Ygbsm (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Better picture

I would suggest that if anyone is inclined, they could submit a creative commons photo of a skin tag. The current picture isn't very clear. --71.199.2.101 (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am going to ask for a better photo. I was just reading elsewhere about some symptoms and Wikipedia was referenced for the text in this article, but not the image. Surely a better one can be provided? --Hordaland (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Diabetes

This article quotes citation 9 as claiming there's association between diabetes mellitus or prediabetes with skin tags. I just read the abstract of that citation and it claims precisely the opposite - no association was found between skin tags and DM. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.238.225 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you did not read all the way to the end of the abstract. It says, "No correlation was found between the localization, size, colour and number of the ST and the presence of DM. Our study indicates that ST are not associated with increased incidence of obesity compared to the general population. On the other hand, ST are associated with impaired carbohydrate metabolism, and may serve as means for identifying patients at increasing risk of having DM." Invertzoo (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

More common in men than women?

I recently removed a statement from this article which said that skin tags are more common in men than women.

I have seen this generalized claim on other sources. For example, the company website "dermatology palm beach" makes this claim, but it does not specify what kind of skin tags: https://www.dermatologypalmbeach.com/skin-conditions-treated/skin-tag-removal/

Recently, I added a reference to a specific document to the Syringoma page, authored by Neil Swanson, which does indicate that some types of skin tags are more common in men than women. Judging by the photo on the "dermatology palm beach" website, it may be that many types of benign tumors are broadly classifed as "skin tags" by dermatologists.

Does this article require more specification to boast the statement "skin tags are more common in women than in men", which is apparently based on dermatology clinic sources, or does it require that we identify which types of skin tags are more common in men than women, with peer reviewed articles or at least more detailed documents authored by known physicians, such as the Swanson reference: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5b42/e737195aca7af80eaf19b5de8023bd658ec6.pdf ?

Hunan201p (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Fibrovascular core link

The link for "fibrovascular" links to Vascular tissue, which concerns plants. The hatnote on that article refers readers to Circulatory system for circulation in animals. This looks like something that needs to be sorted out by someone better versed in medicine or biology than myself. Autarch (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)