Talk:Macrocytosis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Mid‑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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

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 Macrocytosis. 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

Macrocytosis is not a medical sign, its more of an investigation finding.

sign (sin) an indication of the existence of something; any objective evidence of a disease, i.e., such evidence as is perceptible to the examining physician, as opposed to the subjective sensations (symptoms) of the patient. [1].

Any objective evidence of disease. In the list is included a "Halo sign" which is something you can only see in an X-ray. Yes, the examining physician perceives it (it's not history) but not at the bedside (so it's not clinical). So it's possible that signs are not CLINICAL signs, so long as they are OBJECTIVE. Which means formally that all test results are signs, if they require interpretation by the physician. Now, I admit that the word isn't usually used in this fashion by doctors. But the formal definition allows it. But even though it's not wrong as is, I won't object to changing this article to say "lab sign" or "non-clinical sign" or perhaps we can get rid of the word entirely for those people who use the more common usage. Go for it. SBHarris 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]