Talk:Thrombocytopenia/Archive 1

I reacted to an anticoagulation medicine in the hospital (Reopro)and wound up having thrombocytopenia and having to have 4 bags of platelets. What a scary disease, I had purple bruises from my head to my toes. -- Williamb (talk · contribs · logs) 04:59, 30 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Although rare, it is possible to get thrombocytopenia from malaria as well. Enlarged spleen is the key identifier of this. (Along with all of the normal bruising, etc.) I had this, and it dropped my platelet count below 1,000. (Normal ranges are from about 120,000 to 400,000) I thought I might add this as it is not on the causes list. 212.143.118.240 (talk · contribs · logs) 06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a layperson without any medical background, I'm hesitant to edit an article like this, but should it also mention genetic causes of Thrombocytopenia? (e.g. TAR syndrome which both my brothers-in-law have) dramatic 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic, you have an excellent point, and this seems to have been overlooked.--Dr.michael.benjamin 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amgen has filed for the approval of Romiplostim with the FDA. Romiplostim, a thrombopoiesis stimulating Fc fusion protein (peptibody), potentially represents a new approach to treating ITP by working to increase platelet production and sustain platelet levels for as long as needed. Romiplostim works similarly to thrombopoietin (TPO), a natural protein in the body. It contains an active peptide component that stimulates the TPO receptor, which is necessary for growth and maturation of the bone marrow cells that produce platelets and therefore, plays an important role in increasing platelet production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.189.201 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While technically not a drug, Interleukin-2 therapy is known to induce thrombocytopenia in some patients through platelet destruction by the immune system. The effect increases over increasing cycles. This may be too specialized for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miglewis (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombocytopenia#Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (HITT) should be synchronized with Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia#Treatment, and summarize it. Could an expert do this please? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around a bout 1 year ago I was taken in for a minor operation to have my adanoids removed to help me breath better, pre op the surgeon came to see me and stated he was concerned with the fact I had thrombocytopenia and that I, basicaly, may bleed to death on his operating table. Obviously concerned and worried and unaware I had this condition I asked the surgeon to elaborate and explain what thrombocytopenia was, he replied that my platelets were considered low which determined I had this illness. 1 year on I have found myself tiring very easily and suffering from fatigue on a regular basis as well as random bruising mainly on my arms and legs. Should I be worried??? I have had my bloods done and am waiting for a follow up with my GP.(194.193.83.126 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC))(twinnee)[reply]

In no way, shape or form can Wikipedia give medical advice, particularly in individual cases. I think that nih.gov might have a question section, as do other sites. But if I were worried that my physician was not giving me all the information I felt I needed, I might seek a second opinion from another doctor of my choice. I might also (or instead) seek a referral to a specialist like a Hematologist (Blood Doctor.)

Insurance plans seem to cover second opinions at varying rates. from not at all to fully 100%, so I would tend to check with my insurer first. That's just what I would do.

BTW, as you will discover if you spend enough time on Wikipedia (or elsewhere)researching the subject, you'll see that Thrombocytopenia can be a symptom of a deeper underlying problem. Knowledge is power. Do your own research! Arm yourself with knowledge!

Good luck and best wishes!

Michaeloqu (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treating thrombocytopenia in critical illness with platelet transfusions is not based on solid evidence doi:10.1182/blood-2013-02-435693 (good review). JFW | T@lk 20:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the table with above title - coagulation test have absolutely nothing to do with thrombocytopenia.

IiKkEe (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all sections with no references

IiKkEe (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 1,2,3 do not support statements in text.

IiKkEe (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if table is eliminated for a small section (condition by condition) it would help the article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ozzie10aaaa. I would argue that we shouldn't be discussing treatment on this page at all. Often, the decision making on treatment has many determinants, and the reader would be getting the wrong impression if we said that ITP is always treated with, say, azathioprine or romiplostim. We should be discussing treatment in very broad terms (e.g. slightly reduced thrombocyte counts may not require treatment) and direct the reader to the relevant articles. JFW | T@lk 14:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>sepratearticl!81.11.206.29 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These limits are determined by the 2.5th lower and upper percentile, so values outside this range do not necessarily indicate disease.81.11.206.29 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

could you be clearer on Essential thrombocytopenia=tumorentity?(as well as expand on you bottom post)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really should be added, it in particular can be really severe. It almost killed me. Williamb (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a reference per MEDRS?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a source, I'd be happy to add it. Photosynthetic430 ❧ 21:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense for a search for "Essential Thrombocytopenia" to redirect here. If someone types that in it is almost certainly a mistake and they meant essential thrombocythemia, which is basically the opposite of thrombocytopenia. A search for "Essential Thrombocytopenia" should either redirect to Essential Thrombocytosis of ask the user if they meant "Essential Thrombocythemia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.10.164 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

one could do Essential thrombocytopenia as a separate article, however...[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/10/459/eaat4162 --Rainald62 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source, the journal article^{[Note 1]} was used to reference this pre-existing, longstanding statement:

Clinically significant hemorrhage is rare in alcohol-induced thrombocytopenia, and platelet count begins to rise after 2 to 5 days' abstinence from alcohol. The condition itself in such cases is generally benign.^[1]

Although not preferable as a source - as in WP:MEDRS - the actual research itself was not relied upon as support, but only the paper's background discussion^{[See Note 1]} of the condition (i.e. the paper's assertion paraphrased above, did not arise from the authors' own research). If truly not acceptable to use for this purpose, perhaps other, more knowledgeable editors can easily find a source for a seemingly uncontentious point.^{[Note 2]} I would prefer not to leave it uncited, (and, once again, the assertion has been there for many years, at some point being tagged,'CN'. Now it has neither a CN tag nor a source.) Thanks 49.177.64.138 (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composed above, and later saw msg left on Talk page. No worries, it's just easier to put it back the way it was with only partial info. I had already looked at WP:MEDRS, the gist of which I thought I had digested; obviously not! Although I cited primary sources, MEDRS did not seem to disallow in a blanket way - just rejects over-reliance. It allows clinical guidelines^{[Note 3]} from reputable sources. (I acknowledge the point, of course, that UpToDate is less desirable - but not disallowed.) Research cited was in conjunction with a Review (Silczuk, 2020), also cited, and was from high quality journals, e.g. titles in the BMJ stable. So thought that, used together, these, even if not ideal, would be better than a half-arsed explication of alcohol-related, sitting untouched for years past (since 2009!), without any cites.49.177.64.138 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can place the cn tag back, however the source as MEDRS indicates^{[Note 4]} should be 1) review article 5 years or less, 2) WHO, NIH,CDC or NHS,^{[Note 5]} 3) medical textbook--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will let this one through to the keeper, thanks all the same. 'One' can indeed restore the cn, but it might be better to leave that to the experienced Medical editors on Wikiproject Medicine, one of whom originally placed the cn tag in 2017. Cheers, 49.177.64.138 (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up [(!} sorry for the TL:DR] it is difficult to understand the full rationale for removing - admittedly less than gold standard - refs that were deleted. Leaving the 'better source needed' tag for the 'Up To date' reference is one thing, but removing refs because they're research / primary sources (although used only in a secondary capacity), while leaving many, many others in situ elsewhere^{[Note 6]} in the article... well it's just hard to assimilate -and therefore learn - especially as I don't seem to be seeing in WP:MEDRS the absolute prohibitions seemingly implied in your 1), 2), and 3), above! However, I bow to your greater expertise and experience. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) any reference can be changed as long as it follows MEDRS, should there be any you believe can be improved please do, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, I could do that. I don't see those refs as a problem, though, in my reading of WP:MEDRS. Just noted them to query and contrast the differing application of WP:MEDRS, that's confusing to me. Point wasn't to imply those were offending references, but to seek understanding of ... I don't know ... varying ways in which WP policy is applied within one article? Something like that. I was trying to ascertain the pattern! So I could do it properly! As I said earlier, I can't see in WP:MEDRS what you contend. And if sources are capriciously expunged, or allowed to stand, according to some (to me) impenetrable shibboleth, how can one work it out? It's okay though, it really is probably most efficient just to leave it to the Wikiproject Medicine editors. Thanks for listening; I will resign the rant-y soapbox now. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]