Talk:Post-nasal drip

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Post-nasal drip. 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 article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2020 and 13 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elkalpha. Peer reviewers: Simplebutpowerful.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous contributor suggested this:

"Treatment may include antibiotics, nasal irrigation, Jala neti, or minor surgery."

include "spray". Someone please elaborate; for now I'll move it here. --greenmoss 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the common use of "postnasal drip" 124.191.132.90 00:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)crrp[reply]

In response to the common use of "postnasal drip" in "It can also be caused by an allergy (allergic postnasal drip)," I believe the bracketed words do not add any extra value and can be removed as they are not important. Nnshodan16 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "dorsum" in "posterior tongue dorsum" leads to a disambiguation page that does not seem to include anything relevant to this article. I suggest that someone qualified should clarify, possibly at the disambiguation page. Nat 08:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to have a suspicious amount of positive information about using a "pulsating nasal irrigation device" and a picture of one particular brand of such a device (and it would not surprise me if this were the only brand). The whole section appears to have been gamed and turned into a product plug for the "SinuPulse Pulsating Nasal Irrigation System." How do we deal with marketing cruft? Do we just delete it or what? --InformationalAnarchist (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, variations on that text, with those sources, have turned up all over Wikipedia. The editor works for the company. You can certainly delete it if you think appropriate, or reduce it to a less promotional level. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current article says:

>> Post-nasal drip (PND) occurs when excessive mucus is produced by the sinuses.

This is wrong on several levels. The sinuses are NOT normally significant producers of mucus. Rather, the mucus is produced in the nasal passage or cavity itself (nasal fossa), specifically in each of the concha/turbinates inside the cavity. Also, the sentence above implies that postnasal drip is an indicator of or caused by a "sinus problem". It is not, although I suppose it CAN be related to one.

This article also serves to perpetuate the VERY common misconception that the "sinuses" are part of the nasal passage. They are not. The sinuses are hollow spaces (voids) in the bones of the human skull. They are connected to the nasal passage through some small openings called ostia. While the ostia can become clogged, clogged ostia is not at all the same as a "stuffy nose" or "nasal congestion". Nasal congestion is mostly a mechanical constriction of the nasal airway, caused by swelling in the turbinates/concha.

The misconception about "sinuses" is in no small part caused by the pharmaceutical industry, which markets all kinds of "sinus" products rather than using proper terms such as rhinitis and concha/turbinates.

But I digress.

The essence of the matter is that PND is not caused by "excess mucus produced by the sinuses".

Recommendation: Change the above sentence to

>>Post-nasal drip (PND) occurs when an abnormally high level of mucus is produced in the nasal passage.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranasal_sinuses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinus_ostia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucus#Respiratory_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cavity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derkire (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article not linked to any other languages in Wikipedia? Is English the only language in which this symptom is discussed? In German it is apparently "Sekretfluss in den Rachen," per mention in the German article on Sinusitis. In Italian, it is "muco sul piano glottico." In Arabic, it is "ارتجاع السائل الأنفي". In Korean, it is "후비루". Etc. Benefac (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of PND. This article defines PND as uncertain yet cites only one source and that one source is behind a pay wall. I have repeatedly found numerous articles that make false claims unsubstantiated by their source. In order to protect their findings more and more wiki articles are sourcing pay-wall articles. This is not a fair way to present free information. I therefore will change the definition to reflect the ENT current diagnosis that is provided by their online site. Multiple other sites also state this is the definition. That is, PND is the result of a sensation behind the back of the throat. I routinely use PND as a diagnostic- that is do they have the sensation of fluid in the back of their throat. If so they have an infection and it is most likely viral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.105.22 (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the PND definition states its also called Upper Airway Syndrome. This is inaccurate. Variations of PND used to include, erroneously, upper airway syndrome. UAS has since become a separate diagnosis contigent on having PND along with a chronic unexplained cough https://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/ccjm/investigating-chronic-cough-2-2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.105.22 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly the diagnostic criteria is wrong. The listed symptoms are NOT diagnostic for post nasal drip. Please source next time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.105.22 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression from the sources that this condition is not entirely accepted by mainstream medicine. Or at least, the beliefs of some practitioners of alternative medicine in relation to this entity are not entirely accepted in mainstream medicine. I have therefore restored the article to a state which better reflected this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the lead seems a bit heavy. It says "other researchers" (plural) but cites (twice) only one single-authored source.and a quick Google shows that PND is far from fringe. It's described on entnet.org, enttx.com, and in umpteen papers on Pubmed, to mention but three sites. I don't know enough to say whether this particular opinion is worth mentioning at all, but even if it is it sounds like undue weight,as it stands, especially since it represents close to half the lead section. At very least it should live further down and in a much less prominent fashion. Flagging as undue. Any opinions? 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:72 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm a new Wikipedian and chose this article to take on as my first project. I noticed there was an increase in pageviews in March 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and several people I know interestingly became diagnosed with it around the same time. Please feel free to make any suggestions; I'm still learning the ropes but very looking forward to becoming a part of the community.

Overall: This article needs some beefing up, with the addition of several sections to fit the WP:MEDMOS format (see below). I'll be adding more updated, appropriate references and hopefully removing any references to general health sites such as WebMD and Harvard Health. I know there can be some ambiguity in the literature about post-nasal/upper airway cough syndrome (UACS), so I'll do my best to find quality sources. I'll be using Hemingway Editor to keep my writing simplified.

Signs and symptoms: Needs expansion with better sources, and currently places too great an emphasis on GERD. An attempt at explaining pathophysiology is made erroneously in this section, will create separate section.

(+) Mechanism: There can be multiple etiologies (chronic rhinosinusitis, allergic rhinitis, nonallergic rhinitis..) but I think this section is very important to the reader so I'll be doing a lot of work here.

Diagnosis: Will include physical exam findings and nasoendoscopy images, if available.

(+) Prevention: Primarily involves the management of allergic rhinits, sinusitis, but will hopefully find good source stating this.

Treatment: Another important section I'll be focusing on. Will need to include updated sources since all of the sources here are general health sites i.e. WebMD.

(+) Epidemiology: Might be tricky due to the multiple etiologies, but if I can find a good source I'll add this section.

Thanks and happy editing. --Elkalpha (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Elkalpha's edits to the article.

Overall assessment

Understandable: Yes

Sources: Overall, references are fantastic. Though, there is a Healthdirect Australia, a WebMD, and a Harvard Health link among them.

Fidelity to workplan: Yes

Readability (sentence length): Good overall; one offender (see comments on Diagnosis section).

Section by section analysis

Lead: The "symptom vs syndrome" debate might be worth fleshing into a "History" section given the various names this phenomenon has received, and the controversy around it.

Signs & symptoms: Great overview of the clinical presentation.

Causes: Good breakdown, well organized. Might want to plug the names "common cold" and "upper respiratory infection" in there somewhere, if applicable, since these are nice layman's terms that people will recognize.

Mechanism: Great overview, focusing on the pathophysiology common to all the etiologies.

Diagnosis: Good overall. The first sentence of the final paragraph is rather long and the wording is confusing; consider rewording and splitting into multiple sentences to clarify what you mean. If I understand correctly, it sounds like you're trying to say, "This is what some people do to try to diagnose it. But, here's the problem with that method."

Treatment: Great overview, focusing on underlying causes.

Epidemiology: Maybe there's a source showing the raw number of physician visits attributed to post nasal drip?

Great job! Nothing to sneeze at. Simple_butpowerful 04:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]