Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 16 April 2022

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

Template:Vital article

	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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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). Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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)

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. Huhiop (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (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 nasal inflammation with varying amount of throat inflammation." This reference (textbook) is outdated, regardless. Should we look for a more recent reference or not add back in this sentence?

JenOttawa (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Eccles pp. 51–52

I guess not adding back to be compliant with MEDRS (see my talk page) Huhiop (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

stop view sorce 2001:FB1:157:A53B:B6E6:2AFF:FE8A:2B1E (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:1180:4320:11E:583E:AE17:F5BB (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"viral disease" vs "group of viral diseases"

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"

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 Coronavirus#Common_cold. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) 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. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 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? -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

Russian Misplaced Pages calls it syndrome and says that it can be caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi. Can protista cause cold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemohuman (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Colds more common in winter months

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:

"Infections occur more commonly during the winter, spring and autumn due to the colder weather."

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:9C13:1700:C502:4DC3:B4EB:260F (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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. JenOttawa (talk) 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. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion when I spotted the error myself a few days ago and fixed it. The error was introduced in October 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. Joe D (t) 11:56, 19 December 2021 (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.--Nø (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• All unassessed articles
• 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