Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:31, 7 April 2020

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

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

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)

Infection paths

In the article it says that "hand-to-hand and hand-to-surface-to-hand contact seems of more importance than transmission via aerosols.", and there is a citation given to Eccles pp. 211, 215.

On p.214 of that book it says:

In summary, it seems that both methods are important in spreading infection through the community. There seems to be no consensus on the relative importance of either one, but nevertheless it might be reasonable to suppose that both are important, and worth exploiting in any preventive intervention.

Full disclosure: I currently have a cold. According to the wording of the introduction to this talk page that would disqualify me from posting here. I assume the wording is off.

--129.247.247.240 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree and adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Text

"Patients should drink plenty of water, fruit juice or squash mixed with water is acceptable, patients should get plenty of rest or sleep. Patients should see their doctor if, symptoms do not get better after three weeks, if symptoms suddenly get worse, if temperature is very high or a patient is hot and shivery, if a child's condition causes concern, if a patient has difficulty breething or develops chest pain, if a patient has a chronic medical condition like, diabetes, a heart, lung, kidney or neurological disease, if a patient has a weakened immune system, for example through chemotherapy."

Does not follow WP:MEDMOS. Was already covered in the body of the article as "Getting plenty of rest, drinking fluids to maintain hydration, and gargling with warm salt water are reasonable conservative measures". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Common cold

Not a reliable source

I tried the following edit: .

It was reverted with the reason that it's not a reliable source.

• It references a number of other studies on the matter. It's thus not a primary source but a secondary source on those studies. And as it's a study only stating one simple thing about hot drinks, any of the 22 citations will satisfy the secondary sourcing of this study as well. Is that is what is then needed?
• The other author is Ronald Eccles. Eccles is referenced by this article about 70 times. He is a fairly reliable source on the topic. Eccles was also interviewed for a BBC article concerning the study. The interview was removed, understandably.
• The journal is Rhinology. This article features studies from journals such as Urologic nursing and The American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, so it's not a question of limiting it just to the top echelon of journals.
• The study itself has been cited 22 times. Again we could limit it to the top echelon of times cited (in the hundreds), but the article is fine with studies in this range and lower.

So, what exactly is the problem again? Concerning the claim that hot drinks may aid, if you happen to suffer from the common cold? Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The cited paper was primary research from 2008. Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background for an explanation of secondary sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems you didn't bother to read the few lines I wrote. If I reference anything that cites the paper and the claim, it then is a reliable source? Also, as I pointed to Doc James on my talk, this article uses primary sources heartily. That also is not a barrier to entry at this article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article is bad, that's no reason to make it worse adding unreliable sources. I have given links that explain what are considered reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information. We generally don't use the "secondary" bits of primary sources because they are often slanted to serve to purpose of the primary research they are attached to. We use WP:MEDRS instead. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't bad. Excessive source-gating is bad. The links you posted lead to extremely vague general guidelines that can be interpreted any way you want and even claim so themselves. Am I then supposed to interpret them in my favor? Is that what you are stating? Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also see WP:DE. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Posting that link is pretty much just a personal insult. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Cold weather

Cold weather is at least indirectly related to the common cold. So not really a misconception. More complicated than that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources call it a misconception. I think it's reasonable to say that there is a misconception in that it's the direct cause, or has more of an effect than it does. Benjamin (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you think? Does a misconception necessarily have to be a black and white issue? I don't think so. The sources don't think so. Benjamin (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

NHS says "The common cold is much more frequent in winter months, a trend that is seen in all countries of the Northern Hemisphere. Rhinovirus, the most common cause, shows peaks of activity in late autumn and early spring"

Thus it is clear that colds occur more commonly in cold weather... There is limited evidence that the traditional belief that chilling increases the likelihood of the cold may have some basis in reality."

So it may not be a misconception. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, does it have to be such a black and white issue? If the common misconception is just slightly true, but mostly wrong, does that mean it's not a misconception at all? Benjamin (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This sources are poor

• Primary source from 2011
• Primary source from 1983
• Same source as above...
• User contributed site
• Blog
• Blog

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? The claim about the prevalence of the misconception isn't a medical claim like the underlying medical facts, so doesn't require MEDRS. What sort of source would you expect? Generally, scholarly work focuses on the underlying facts themselves, rather than the relative prominence of misconceptions. Benjamin (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

But it may not be a misconception. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Some people think chilling (e.g. cold showers) decreases the chance of getting a cold. Both views aren't supported by good evidence. I think "misconception" is a tad strong. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add the line:

Sleep can help rid the common cold quicker because it allows the immune system to rejuvenate and battle viruses and infections.

After the sentence:

Insufficient sleep and malnutrition have been associated with a greater risk of developing infection following rhinovirus exposure; this is believed to be due to their effects on immune function.

The reference citation is:

Crockbar (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That is not a suitable reference for medical claims. If you find a source compliant with WP:MEDRS that says this, then please bring it here. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

1. "Does Sleep Help A Cold? Know Why And How Sleep Impacts Your Health". Calming Journey. Retrieved 8 October 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Common cold. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I don't know how to format this, and since it's locked, you'll have to check

Due to ongoing COVID-19 research, change recommendation of "Ibuprofen" to "https://en.wikipedia.org/Paracetamol" and/or "acetaminophen/Advil/Motrin" (EU / USA naming conventions)

Go research it yourself, but sources are mixed; doctors in Vienna are seeing Ibuprofen in most of the dead, so there's that. DO YOU WANT PEOPLE DEAD BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA WAS WRONG? 73.228.222.176 (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2020 (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
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests