|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 Wilms' tumor.
|WikiProject Medicine / Nephrology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 'Normal'
- 2 I've
- 3 Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms?
- 4 Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms? - Reply
- 5 Wilms' vs. Wilms
- 6 Wilms' vs. Wilms
- 7 FIXED Eponym
- 8 FIXED Adult Onset
- 9 Benign or malignant
- 10 Assessment
- 11 Constellations of Conditions
- 12 CT scan is of right kidney
- 13 Survival Rates
- 14 Percentage numbers for stages
- 15 Link removed - not useful
Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms?
Which has precedence-- medical or common?
- "Wilms" 5784
- nephroblastoma 6851
- "Wilms tumor" 150,000
- nephroblastoma 49,100
I'm not fan of eponyms and think nephroblastoma is a better term 'cause it describes the condition -- nephro - kidney, blastoma - tumor arising from embryonic tissue. Any thoughts on this... rules? Nephron 23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms? - Reply
"Which has precedence - medical or common?"
Good point, and well argued. However, why not have a quick think about this: who is wikipedia directed at - medical professionals, or the public as whole (medical or not). Your evidence from google functions as a double edged sword, while weakening your arguement it strengthens my own, by illustrating that the term "Wilms' tumor" permits greater accessibility than 'nephroblastoma'.
We don't want to impose rules on Wikipedia that would stiffle accessiblity to the majority. Wouldn't that essentially oppose the ethos of "The Free Encyclopedia"?
Such rules would be counterproductive.
Wilms' vs. Wilms
My impression was that the apostrophe is not needed or standard. If others agree, please edit the article appropriately.
- The form with the apostrophe is the original form. It's "Wilms' tumor". The other eponyms associated with Max Wilms are "Wilms' amputation", "Wilms' cones", "WIlms' symptom", and "Wilms' operation". See Who named it?. There has been a trend toward eliminating possessive eponyms (thus Down's syndrome, the original form, is often "Down syndrome" today, and this is reflected in dictionaries; however, while Merriam Webster's Collegiate has entries for both "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome", it has an entry only for "Wilms' tumor", and not "Wilms tumor", so the former, with the apostrophe, is still the standard spelling. - Nunh-huh 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I had it Wow this was a journey but I survived and am ALIVE. I was ten.
Wilms' vs. Wilms
This disease does not need an appostrophe to show ownership as it is named after the scientist who discovered it, his last name was Wilms. So, it is a Wilms tumor.
To say 'it is eponymously named after' is a truism! It would be better to say 'it is named after...' or 'it is eponymous to...'
FIXED Adult Onset
The at risk group is larger than children. My father died of it at age 49. My half-brother has been on dialysis since his 40s.
Benign or malignant
I have made several edits to the article to address questions here, but there is still more to do. At present the article is inconsistent re whether Wilms' tumor is always a malignant cancer, or sometimes benign. Would someone care to research this question and clean up the article? --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Constellations of Conditions
CT scan is of right kidney
The CT scan on this page shows a tumor in the right kidney, not the left kidney (as stated before). CT scans are read in cross-sectional slices as if the patient were lying on a bed, feet facing you; therefore, the left side of the image corresponds to the patient's right side. This orientation is also consistent with the position of the aorta and aortic arch, liver, et cetera in this particular scan. I have edited the page accordingly. --shrimppesto (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Direct citation and in text references necessary for survival rates. Particularly because a 4 year survival rate is listed for stage V. Rare at best. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Percentage numbers for stages
Link removed - not useful
I reverted the addition of the "See Also" link to article Sara Shamsavari - the subject's only connection is that she has Wilms' tumour. I don't think it adds anything to list people with a condition. If others think otherwise, there should be a separate list or some annotation. DavidCh0 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)