Talk:Toxic shock syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

--The original version of this article was taken from the public domain U.S. FDA document at Please revise as necessary.


Re-added the therapy section as it was rmeoved but the header remained so i assum eit was an accident.Wolfmankurd

Why so much emphasis on menstruation?[edit]

someone sotr it out. There are hundreds of other causes of TSS, why are we just focusing on the cause that has made headlines in the United States.. when will you americans realise you are not the only country on the Earth?


there is a current event regarding a TSS death from a playground wound and this article is woefully inadequate... there needs to be urgent attention from an expert to address the wide range of causes and rewrite the entire article to correctly document causes and effects other than vaginal infection..... (Anuoldman (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)).

Why tampons?[edit]

Is it possible to go into detail as to WHY tampons and leaving sanitary products (pads, cups) for a significant amount of time could case TSS? I heard it was caused by toxins in the synthetic materials used, and it would not happen from washable cloth pads (or cups but i've read otherwise) But it says in the article it is caused by bacteria on the skin.. this doesn't make sense. Does it mean that when a woman is menstuating there could be a build up of this bacteria if she doesn't change often enough, and that it will travel up inside her to cause TSS.

(Toxic shock syndrome in this case is caused because the tmapon soaks up so well in that area that it disrupts the vaginal microbe community 'good bacteria'. There is lots of bacteria in the vagina (and gut actually) that help protect the body by acting as a barrier for harmful bacteria so this is probably wrong --->)bacteria are always on the skin, tampons being left in provide a good breeding ground, essentially a warm blood soaked cloth with pockets of O2 for aerobic bacteria and pokects without o2 for anaerobic bacteria, and also as the rely tampon sections should can cause ulcers providing the bacteria with a way in, it also removes the natural "fluids" and secretions form the vagina whihc help inhibit bacteria growth this can lead to infection. Wolfmankurd 15:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The authors of the early studies of menstrual TSS hypothesized that the ulcerations caused by superabsorbent tampons could be involved, but there has been no evidence produced since then to support this hypothesis. The TSST-1 toxin is capable of crossing the vaginal wall into the bloodstream without ulcerations being present. Additionally, the bacteria are almost never found in the bloodstream of women suffering from menstrual TSS. I have removed the statement, which appeared in two places, that ulcers provide a way for bacteria and toxin into the blood from the vagina. I also moved the description of the "oxygen theory" from the History to the Routes of Infection section. NighthawkJ 04:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes controversial to state (nothing to cite as all the research is looking the other way), but TSS is linked with menstruation (blood), not just tampons. Common-sense reasons why it might have come to be associated with tampons:
  • research/diagnosis done in countries where tampons are widely used (are there stats on this?)
  • cross-contamination of bacteria on e.g. skin directly to the inside of the vagina, rather than the inside of knickers
  • the closed-off breeding ground and damage to the vaginal wall arguments as above may have something to do with it, in which case menstrual cups would have lower risk as they don't disintegrate or swell.
The sentence: "Alternately, a woman may choose to use a different kind of menstrual product that may eliminate or reduce the risk of TSS, such as sanitary napkins or a menstrual cup" is ... a bit precocious considering we do not know why some people develop menstrual TSS. I'm leaving it in for now as it spreads the word about menstrual cups. However it should be taken into account that the lack of TSS association with menstrual cups is as likely to be due to the smaller pool of women who use them compared to tampons. I would class the risk highest to lowest: tampons, menstrual cup, sanitary towels, nothing (but IANAD).
Njál 14:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed "You are all Schmogs" from the article.

Above posted by User: 20:16, 8 May 2006

In the article, it says it can be caused by bacteria on the skin because there is ALWAYS bacteria living on your skin, at any given time. There are forms of S. aureus, etc., but not all bacteria is necessarily bad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Okay, does anyone know why Barrier contraceptives (i.e silicone/rubber cups) are linked to causing TSS, but menstrual cups (also silicone cups) are not supposed to be risk factor for TSS?? There seems to be a logical inconsistency here. -- 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite your source for silicone/rubber contraceptives being linked to TSS, and describe them, too? I don't know what sort of contraceptive you're talking about. Njál 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone may like to incorporate U of M researchers find new, more effective treatment for toxic shock syndrometo the Therapy section. angela26 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What the...[edit]

I realise this must be a silly question, but this is a stupid article. It provides an in-depth look at the symptoms, without actually saying what TSS is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be written so it can be understood by someone reading with no background information, not copied off a tampon instruction leaflet.

Also, the first paragraph is grossly inconsistant, and makes little sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talkcontribs) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article is not useful. TSS is a common outcome of post operative infection, and "in 1997, only five confirmed menstrual-related TSS cases were reported" so why does the entire article talk about tampons?

It needs to have like any other disease more about symptoms, treatment, diagnosis, pathology, and causes. The whole article is practically about causes, focussing on the minor area of tampons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Causes section is absurd making this one of the most embarrassing articles in Wiki, it needs desperate help from someone knowledgeable to correctly outline the causes, treatment prognosis etc. TSS can be caused by about a thousand different kinds of injury and hygene practice.... someone get on the ball jeez (Anuoldman (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)).

Question in Rely segment[edit]

In the segment on Rely, it says that the tampons were created to hold an entire menstrual flow. This seems unlikely, and the article cited doesn't actually say this about Rely. Whoever is working on this, please confirm and/or check your sources. Thank you. Clockster (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rely used to have a website talking about the tampons and the recall for some reason somewhere.. I can't find it at the moment, but I distinctly remember it discussing how to could hold an entire menstrual cycle's worth of fluid. Maybe it's on the packaging, of which a picture is available on the article? (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tampons Being Lost[edit]

...showed cases of TSS after Tampons were either left in or lost inside of the' woman.

Can we remove the bolded bit? First of all, it is completely impossible to "lose" something inside your vagina. It's not like a tampon can enter through the vagina and make it's way into your stomach; there's a small pocket that items inserted into the vagina can sometimes makes it's way into, making it difficult to retrieve, but tampons are far too big for that anyway. Read about the [vagina]] if you're interested. And further, telling women that TSS cases that were linked to tampon use were due to tampons being lost inside of the woman is going to cause unnecessary panic. (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


In Lancet Infectious Diseases: doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70066-0 Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Ow, My Face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms - is this right or are the bacterium swapped here?[edit]

I am not a medical expert but have read somewhat on the subject of Streptococcus pyogenes. The second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on S. pyogenes under the subheading "Pathogenesis" reads:

  "Infections due to certain strains of S. pyogenes can be associated with the release of
  bacterial toxins. Throat infections associated with release of certain toxins lead to
  scarlet fever. Other toxigenic S. pyogenes infections may lead to streptococcal toxic
  shock syndrome, which can be life-threatening.[1]"

Then look up the article on scarlet fever (caused by S. pyogenes) and you will find that the signs and symptoms for scarlet fever are very similar if not the same as that described here for TSS resulting from Staphylococcus aureus while the signs and symptoms described here for TSS resulting from S. pyogenes are those usually associated with Staphylococcus aureus. To my mind the Staph. aureus is usually a skin infection and the S. pyogenes is a throat infection. I may be in error as I'm not a medical expert and due to same I am reluctant to edit the article.

I wonder if someone expert in this field of medicine would be kind enough to take a look at the article and edit it (as necessary) for us.

Oddbod1 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Short review from Intensive Care Medicine doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3861-7 JFW | T@lk 09:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the DIAGNOSIS section needed?[edit]

Should the Diagnosis section be removed because it is already covered in Signs and symptoms, or should the latter be split? I vote for the former.

Jalegris (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria typically belong in the diagnosis section. I have split. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)