Misplaced Pages

Talk:Common cold: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:18, 17 April 2022 edit2001:fb1:157:a53b:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e (talk) vaginalTag: Reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:09, 23 September 2024 edit undoZefr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers69,458 edits →Self contradiction: ReplyTag: Reply 
(29 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=60|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Article history|action1=GAR
]
|action1date=24 June 2007
|action1link=Talk:Common cold#Delisted from Good Article status
|action1result=Delisted
|action1oldid=140263799


|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
Line 18: Line 22:
|currentstatus=GA |currentstatus=GA
}} }}
⚫ {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=GA|importance=Top|translation=yes |translation-imp=Top }} {{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Top|translation=yes |translation-imp=Top }}
{{WP1.0 |class=GA |category=category |VA=yes |WPCD=yes |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Viruses|importance=Top}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Viruses |class=GA |importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} {{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
Line 59: Line 62:
{{Talk: Common cold/GA1}} {{Talk: Common cold/GA1}}


== Update to include COVID-19 vaccine ==
== Eccles ref ==


I see a ref with Eccles and a page number, I do not know this ref. It is quasi impossible for someone reading this article to know which book are we talking about. I am deleting the claim associated. ] (]) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC) The text: "There is no vaccine for the common cold" is no longer accurate since there are now vaccines for some strains of Coronavirus. ] (]) 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
: Hi! I noticed this as well a few months ago. This ref is in the works-cited list. At the time I was not aware of this reference formatting for textbooks.
: Works cited
: Eccles, Ronald; Weber, Olaf, eds. (2009). Common Cold (Illustrated ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-7643-9912-2.2
: I see you removed ''"The common cold is frequently defined as ] with varying amount of throat inflammation.<ref name=E51>Eccles pp. 51–52</ref>"'' This reference (textbook) is outdated, regardless. Should we look for a more recent reference or not add back in this sentence?
⚫ :] (]) 19:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
⚫ {{reflist-talk}}
::I guess not adding back to be compliant with MEDRS (see my talk page) ] (]) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (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. ] (]) 08:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:stop view sorce ] (]) 05:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


== Terminology == == Reference Update ==


Please change the url of current ref. no. , the broken link of to the valid url . ] (]) 08:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As I read this and the Coryza/Rhinitis entry, I surmise the forner is a symptom of the common cold, but not strictly speaking a synonym for the term as it is often used. Is this correct? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:It should really be removed entirely as it is not an acceptable source for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
== "viral disease" vs "group of viral diseases" ==


== Distinguishing acute bacterial rhinosinusitis from a common cold ==
Since the common cold doesn't refer to a single virus family (compared to e.g. Flu), would it be sensible to edit the lead sentence:
*Currently: "The common cold ... is a viral infectious disease"
*Proposed alt1: "The common cold ... is a group of viral infectious diseases"
*Proposed alt2: "The common cold ... is an infectious disease, caused by a number of viruses"


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). <ref>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 </ref>
I realise it's clarified in lead paragraph 2 that it's not just rhinoviruses, but it could be worth synchronising the lead sentence to that phrasing (e.g. it's linked from ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
* It's not a group of diseases. Acute respiratory viral infections can be represented in different forms including the common cold and acute bronchitis. Both are different diseases with different infection localization. The same pathogen can cause the common cold and acute bronchitis thereafter. -- ] (]) 20:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


== Common cold as clinical syndrome ==


Currently, the common cold is defined as ″viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory tract″. But in fact about 30% of common cold cases have no identified pathogen and in about 5% of cases bacterial agent is found through its casual role is not established (). Moreover, the disease can be caused by about 200 different viruses. Symptoms are similar and the disease can be even self-diagnosed without any tests. So it can be defined as a clinical syndrome. Some medical articles define common cold as a syndrome: . Here's some information about syndrome vs disease meaning: . As I think defining the disease as clinical syndrome would be more accurate since many cases have no identified pathogen and the disease is caused by many different viruses. What do you think? -- ] (]) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


⚫ ] (]) 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''

⚫ {{reflist-talk}}

== 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: ] ] (]) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Russian Misplaced Pages calls it syndrome and says that it can be caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi. Can protista cause cold? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Thanks for your suggestion {{Ping|BlueBellTree|p=}}, 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 ]: 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. ] ] 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
== Colds more common in winter months ==
::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. ] (]) 18:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


== Self contradiction ==
In the last paragraph before the contents widget there is a sentence with a citation no longer valid (wording not found at link); besides, cold weather does not directly increase the chance of spreading the cold, therefore it is not "due to" the colder weather:


"Signs and symptoms may appear in as little as two days after exposure to the virus."
"Infections occur more commonly during the winter, spring and autumn due to the colder weather."


"Usual onset ~2 days from exposure" (in info box)
Rather the reason is the increased humidity and precipitation during winter months which means more water molecules in the air for viruses to get into and be inhaled by an organism. Could somebody please reword this sentence on the page because I'm not sure if I can remove a citation. I also don't have a citation for the water molecule thing but I doubt it needs one, kinda makes sense doesn't it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Nice noticing this error. I can help make the improvement, however, I would need a citation for the mechanism of why infections are more common in the winter months. ] (]) 16:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
:: Many factors can contribute to the spread of the infection, its susceptibility and symptoms severity. Among them are crowding at cold seasons, air humidity, increased upper respiratory tract reactivity due to cold and dry air inhalation stability of viruses. Even cold air by itself can transform a subclinical infection into a clinical. -- ] (]) 11:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


Probably nobody will be bother to fix it, which is why Misplaced Pages sucks...
::Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion when I spotted the error myself a few days ago and fixed it. The error was by an unreliable editor with a very poor record of edits needing to be reverted, so the simplest fix at the time was just to revert that change and not attempt to include all those complexities in the introduction at all. ] ] 11:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
] (]) 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 ] yourself. ] (]) 22:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I think one more factor may be contributing to the misconception that you catch a cold by being exposed to cold. I know ... wikipedia is not a forum, but I wonder if sources backing this up might be found. Sometimes, when we're exposed to cold, while able to register the low temperature through our skin, we may feel comfortable with it; at other times, we are much more sensitive, freezing though temperatures are not so low. This may (I believe) be the first noticeable symptom of the common cold, and thus may easily be mistaken for the cause.--] (]) 11:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:09, 23 September 2024

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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 
Good articleCommon 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
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 12, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 29, 2011Good article nomineeListed
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:
WikiProject iconMedicine: Translation Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconViruses Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
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.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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:

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)
Categories: