Talk:Lichen planus

message: In the section labelled "treatment," I'm concerned by the lengthy endorsement of an alleged homeopathic "cure" for lichen planus that efectively is an ad for a commercial product that is sold over the internet from the site www.lichenplanus.com. All the other listed treatments get a single line entry, with links to other Wikipedia pages where they exist. Certainly homeopathic treatments can and should be acknowledged, but isn't the inclusion of what amounts to an infomercial for one specific "brand" problematic? I have visited the site I mention, and know that in addition to promoting the product mentioned, which is extremely expensive, all other effective treatments are criticized at great length. I am new to posting on Wikipedia but felt strongly enough that I opened an account today to ask: isn't this in violation to some Wikipedia policy? Is there a mechanism for reporting instances where Wikipedia is being used as an advertising medium? Dee Lilly 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I put up a citation tag.  If there isn't a citation for this in a few days I will remove the offending passage.  I personally have never seen or heard of any effective homeopathic treatments for oral lichen planus (I am a dentist not a dermatologist), but I wouldn't be averse to reading articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals on this topic.  Also - please read your user page. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In

message: Are you sure that image isn't psoriasis? It doesn't really look very polygonal Lenrodman (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This was added to the treatment section by an anonymous IP editor:
Raw Virgin Coconut Oil taken internally helps reduce inflammation and if used daily will keep the disease at bay.
I've moved it here because its unreferenced and makes unsupported claims.  Happy for it to be moved back if suitable references can be provided. Mattopaedia  Say G'Day!</fo-nt> 02:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced information 

message: I propose that this article be kept focused on cutaneous lichen planus. Some of the content seems to focus on oral lichen planus, and since we have a separate article for OLP, this doesn't make sense. I have started expanding the classification section of this parent article, partly with stubs that I have merged and partly with new content. I think this would be a good template to follow: keep article generally about cutaneous LP, and use the subsections in the classification bit to talk about how those variants differ from cutaneous lichen planus generally. I also think that many of the morphological LP pages would benefit from being merged into this parent article too. As it is we have a herd of otherwise orphaned stubs, many of which are one or two sentences long, and a parent article that is not as useful as it could be because it is mostly made up of a list of stub pages. Content which arguably should be here... Lesion (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. Let's see how the page looks after the merge. LT90001 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lichen planus parent article

message: I've tweaked the layout so it is less of confusing. The subtypes that were merged are essentially forms of cutaneous lichen planus, so I put them in that section. Could do with consistent layout.
The mucosal lichen planus section could do with more details about conjunctival, nasal, otic, bladder involvement, etc but struggling to find MEDRS compliant sources. 
I have put "genital lichen planus" in the mucosal section, but I think that the implication is that it can occur on the genital skin as well.
I put "nail lichen planus" in the skin LP section, for want of somewhere better to put it.
Left oral lichen planus unmerged, with rationale that I plan to expand that article a lot soon, so it might benefit with its own page which links back to this rather than break the flow of this parent page, but I'm happy to listen to other opinions. Lesion (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. What do you think about a rename to mucosal lichen planus? I'm guessing as by affecting the mucosal LPs share a similar pathophysiology. Just floating an idea here, feel free to shoot it down.LT90001 (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Wow, this article is looking much better! Your cutaneous/mucosal division is very easy to understand. It's starting to look good. No, I don't believe they're the same, although they certainly overlap - I'll reinstate the morphology/site divide to make that clear.LT90001 (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: This appears to be one of the last lichen-planus articles not merged here. I propose a merge because:
* The ICD codes are the same, so these are by at least one international standard recognised as the same entity.
* The treatment remains the same
* The differences appear to relate to typical presentation and prognosis, which can be covered here.
* It is better to have a more in-depth explanation of pathology on this article than separate it into two, as the pathology is the same. LT90001 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OLP and cutaneous LP & other variants of LP are the same condition, but arguably there are enough sources (thousands) which focus on OLP to warrant a separate page. However, since we have merged other types of LP to the main page, and also lichenoid reactions, then there is less of a case to keep OLP separate. OLP is closer topic to LP generally than lichenoid reactions, imo. But I see the logic that the histologic & clinical appearance of lichenoid reactions is the same too, so separate pages would again duplicate some content there. It would be nice to see a large and detailed article one day with more detail about the subtypes. I plan to add content about OLP, but can't promise that this will be anytime soon. It might give excess weight to OLP on the LP page if everything is merged, but happy to wait and see how it looks. Merging will also solve the problem I was anticipating about where to talk about lichenoid reactions in the mouth. Lesion (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral lichen planus

message: * It is my understanding that any editor (even those who have extensively been involved in editing the article) are free to change the class of articles if they see fit up to B grade, but a GA status requires a formal GA review...
* Care is needed with choosing sources. Please see WP:MEDRS. One of the refs,   fails WP:MEDDATE by a significant margin. The old source was 1960s, so at least is better, but we should aim not to include any source that is much older than 5 years. Not an absolute rule, but I think the majority of people would interpret 1985 as too old a source... This is for the list of histopathologic features. I will have a look in a modern oral pathology textbook and a dermatology textbook for these classically described features...most textbooks would likely list them. Note that MEDRS may not necessarily apply to the history section, after all it is natural to use older sources here. Similarly for society and culture section.
* Care is needed when altering content that previous sources are supporting. Please see WP:INTEGRITY. E.g. the source Kerawala 2010. What the original source actually says is this: "Small risk of malignant change especially if erosive". In a previous version of the article, the content "Atrophic/erosive lichen planus is associated with a small risk of malignant transformation,[26] " was supported by Kerawala 2010. The same source has now been used to support the following content: "A biopsy can be used to rule out conditions that may resemble lichen planus, and can pick up any secondary malignancies. [25]" As far as I can see, the kerawala source does not support this content at all?
* In the differential diagnosis section, note that "Candida" is not a diagnosis. Suggest "Oral candidiasis".
* In the desire to see consistent referencing technique, I did look this up in the end. Per WP:CITEFOOT, reference tags should go immediately after punctuation with no space. As if a sign, a bot fixed this error on one of the pages on my watchlist today, which triggered me to look up the policy. 
* Aside from these minor points, article is looking better, agree. Lesion (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've fixed all the spaces, removed the unsourced treatments for oral candidiasis, candida -> candidiasis, and upgraded to B class. I won't be making any further thorough edits of this article, and it was a pleasure to edit collaboratively with you. LT90001 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Likewise, thank you. Unfortunately I've been busy recently, maybe at some point I will be able to expand the OLP content more. Hopefully in time the cutaneous LP details will be expanded too. Lesion (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup issues

message: Not sure about this. I do not think it is correct. The source http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Granuloma-Annulare.htm lists granuloma annulare in the Ddx of lichen planus and vice versa. This suggests they are different conditions. Lesion (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: From my understanding they are distinct conditions. --LT910001 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted this aspect of the recent IP edit. Lesion (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Also reverted addition of "Serpentine" since I could not find any source describing this as a recognized sub type of LP. Lesion (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[granuloma annulare]] a type of lichen planus? 

message: I reverted this edit and this edit on use of apremilast and acetretin to treat lichen planus, which was not sourced to WP:MEDRS standards and would have violated our Manual of Style with regard to drugs - specifically because this would be an investigational/off-label use; I find no evidence that this regimen is approved for treating lichen planus; it matters little that there are ongoing clinical trials, because (also per MEDMOS) we don't catalog trials in article space.  — soupvector (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit on treatment