|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 Strongyloidiasis.
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I agree completely. There are two separate entries which are essentially duplicates (Strongyloides and strongyloidiasis) that could be safely and easily merged into one page. 184.108.40.206 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Thomas A. Moore, MD, FACP
- I don't see a problem keeping the two articles separate as long as the current article contains the clinical information and the Strongyloides stercoralis sticks to the biology of the beast. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Some sources in case I feel like working on this:
- doi:10.1345/aph.1K302 (Ann Pharmacother 2007) - difficult to access!
- doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e32833df718 (Curr Opin Infect Dis 2010)
- doi:10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.01.020 (Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2008)
- doi:10.1016/j.trstmh.2009.02.013 (Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2009)
- doi:10.1086/630201 (Clin Infect Dis 2009 - how to make transplant patients not die of HS)
- doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2009.09.001 (Eur J Intern Med 2009 - how to make rheumatology patients not die of HS when given da roids)
- doi:10.1128/CMR.17.1.208-217.2004 (Clin Microbiol Rev - more on immunocompromise)
- doi:10.1086/322707 (Clin Infect Dis 2001 - often-cited review on diagnosis)
- doi:10.1136/bmj.f4610 is from this week's BMJ. It's fairly good. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002002 a review from PLOS neglected tropical diseases. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Something super-important to add
In this study done by the National Institute of Health Sciences: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751445/ The scientists conducting the study state: "The ability to achieve adequate levels of ivermectin after oral administration in patients with disseminated strongyloidiasis may be impaired, highlighting the need for alternative routes of administration of ivermectin in these patients. Thus, ivermectin levels, in a patient with disseminated strongyloidiasis, were below the average of those reported by other authors following oral administration (1.1 ng·ml−1 after ingesting a total dosage of 1,000 μg/kg over 3 consecutive days). This was followed by the administration of three subcutaneous doses (200 μg/kg), injected every 2 days, increasing ivermectin levels to 7.9 ng·ml−1 at 1 week after the last dose, with evidence of additional metabolite accumulation and also a sustained antiparasitic effect. Thus, in these patients, who are unable to absorb oral medication, parenteral ivermectin (not licensed for use in humans) is a better option (18)."
This seems super-important to me: it could make the difference between someone recovering or staying ill, and the government needs to get up-to-date with its own findings regarding parenteral ivermectin in humans as well.
Also, note that a drug company may try to stop or change this because it could hurt their sales. The page may need to be locked!!
I've tried adding super-important medical stuff like this before, but some **** got in the way stating something about how only studies funded by conflict-of-interest bearing drug companies were allowed as sources. Whatever. Anyway, that is why I am not adding it directly myself this time but rather instructing one of you wikipedia employees to do so. The National Institute of Health Sciences is as credible a source as you can get, but something tells me that will just make you wikipedia employees less likely to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)