Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:09, 23 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Common cold article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	Common cold has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 24, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted January 12, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed December 29, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Translation Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance). Viruses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Common cold. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

If you currently have a cold and want to post about it, or are trying to discuss the common cold in general, do not do so here! Misplaced Pages is not a blog or forum. Go to your blog and post there. Please limit this talk page for discussion of improvement on this article.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: McIver DJ, Brownstein JS (2014). "Misplaced Pages Usage Estimates Prevalence of Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time". PLOS Computational Biology. Retrieved 2014-04-21.

Daily page views for this article over the last 2.5 years
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

GA

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Common cold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "While a cough and a fever indicate a higher likelihood of influenza in adults, there is a great deal of similarity between these two conditions" - different viruses? (Maybe could say a little more about the difference?)

• "it may also be related to changes in the respiratory system that results in greater susceptibility" - can this be explained more?

• "This is believed to be due primarily to increased time spent indoors,..." - is there a way of getting rid of the passive voice? (There are other examples also.)

• Herd immunity - Doesn't this apply to the prevalence of vaccinations? is there a vaccination for the cold?

No, it does not apply only to vaccine-derived immunity, but naturally acquired immunity too. (See; Fine P, Eames K, Heymann DL (2011). ""Herd immunity": a rough guide". Clinical Infectious Diseases : an Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 52 (7): 911–6. doi:10.1093/cid/cir007. PMID 21427399. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the text in the link Herd immunity is misleading? It's under the general category of "Cause", so the impression is that people herded together cause the spread of the cold virus, when the opposite is meant if the link is actually read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewTownsend (talk • contribs)

I am not sure if my clarification helped.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Perhaps the text in the link Herd immunity is misleading? It's under the general category of "Cause", so the impression is that people herded together cause the spread of the cold virus, when the opposite is meant if the link is actually read. Fixed I see.

• Yes it did. We got caught in an edit conflict.
• "regarding BTA-798" - what is BTA-798? - could "regarding" be changed to "to"?

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• A very informative and helpful article. (Even though I don't get colds, everyone around me does!) Good work! Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The article says "The primary method of prevention is by hand washing". I don't know if this means I can prevent other people catching my cold if I wash my hands, or if it means other people can stop themselves catching my cold if they wash their hands, or if it means I can prevent myself catching other people's colds if I wash my hands. Or does it mean I can prevent the symptoms getting very bad, after I catch a cold, by washing my hands?86.131.54.100 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Update to include COVID-19 vaccine

The text: "There is no vaccine for the common cold" is no longer accurate since there are now vaccines for some strains of Coronavirus. RRFreeman (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The covid-19 vaccine impacts the virus itself, the common cold is a disease (ie the reaction to the virus) so it has no vaccine as so many virial strains impact it. 78.137.138.130 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference Update

Please change the url of current ref. no. , the broken link of to the valid url . Con-struct (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It should really be removed entirely as it is not an acceptable source for Misplaced Pages. Bon courage (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Distinguishing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis from a common cold

A useful checklist is provided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) consensus, which recommends the use of a combination of signs and symptoms to identify acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), diagnosed when ≥3 of five criteria are present: Discolored discharge with a unilateral predominance; Severe local pain; Fever ≥38°C; Double sickening; Elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).

BlueBellTree (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Rhinology 2020; 58(Suppl S29): 1-464. rhinologyjournal.com/Documents/Supplements/supplement_29.pdf

Distinguishing bacterial sinusitis from a common cold

A useful checklist is provided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) consensus, which recommends the use of a combination of signs and symptoms to identify acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), diagnosed when ≥3 of five criteria are present: Discolored discharge with a unilateral predominance; Severe local pain; Fever ≥38°C; Double sickening; Elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). * DOI: 10.4193/Rhin20.600 BlueBellTree (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion @BlueBellTree, but I'm afraid I've reverted this for now, as I don't think it's right for Misplaced Pages in its current form. See WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages is not a 'how to' guide, medical textbook or instruction manual. Additions to this article should be descriptive of notable facts about the common cold. There is perhaps potential to expand 'diagnosis' section of this article to say a little more than it currently does about differential diagnosis. But it would need to lay out in an encyclopedic style what other illnesses are difficult to distinguish from the common cold, and why, while demonstrating notability and relevance. I think it's unlikely we would have enough encyclopedic content to need a separate subsection for one specific differential diagnosis. Joe D (t) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. Im still learning here. I fitted some of the information in under the paragraph on viruses and bacteria and it seems to fit better there. BlueBellTree (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Self contradiction

"Signs and symptoms may appear in as little as two days after exposure to the virus."

"Usual onset ~2 days from exposure" (in info box)

Probably nobody will be bother to fix it, which is why Misplaced Pages sucks... 86.123.193.170 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a contradiction because the two statements say the same thing and are sourced to the same reference. If you want to modify how it reads, propose a change here (add a source, if needed) or WP:FIXIT yourself. Zefr (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• GA-Class level-3 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• GA-Class virus articles
• Top-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press