Talk:Scarlet fever

message: i had it and it kills like crazy
Article has below mentioned inconsistency issues and has almost no information on treatment or the history of this disease. As also mentioned below, the disease was very virulent prior to the invention of a vaccine and appeared in numerous works of literature, ie Frankenstein. Quality level dropped to C. 76.28.77.142 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: i

message: Scarlet Fever is the name for the rash that occurs due to released exotoxins from Group A strep.
Rheumatic Fever is the autoimmune disease that occurs after infection with Group A strep that causes damage to your heart valves. 
--DocJohnny 22:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scarlet Fever != Rheumatic Fever 

message: The edits you made are quite interesting and add some depth to the article, but they need to be sourced. I did remove the "They require reassurance..." sentence as it not very encyclopedic imo. --DocJohnny 06:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rutigor 

message: Illness is too vague to belong on any symptom list.
Antibiotic treatment for streptococcal infections is not seriously criticized. While most people will recover without antibiotics from strep throat, antibiotics significantly reduce complications such as rheumatic fever.  I can find no legitimate medical articles advocating against antibiotic usage.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 05:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illness and Antibiotics. 

message: Doesn't Beth in Little Women die from Scarlet Fever?  This article states she recovered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.14.227 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Margery Williams, not Marjorie--sorry. WordwizardW (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scarlet Fever in Literature Section - Beth from Little Women 

message: Image states "Slapped Cheek".  I think this is incorrect and may be confusing to the medical community (esp medical students).  Slapped cheek is typically attribured to "Erythema infectiosum (fifth disease), not Scarlet fever.  Scarlet fever normally is said to be associated with sandpaper rash on the abdomen and circumoral palor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksaraf (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this contribution.It is erroneous to describe the red face of scarlet fever as "slapped cheek" as this has a different,far less serious, cause -B19 parvovirus.86.128.182.232 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted caption to match description as given in the article text and remove the highly confusing mention of "slapped cheek" which of course would be mistaken for descirption of fifth disease (aka "slapped cheek syndrome"). I've also asked image author to review their image's caption.David Ruben  Talk  17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Estreya, in that case, your physician may have misdiagnosed your child.  The picture shows slapped cheeks, a sign of fifth disease.  Perioral pallor is seen with scarlet fever, but no pallor is seen -- that is your daughter's natural skin color.  The rash of scarlet fever spares the face.  The "definitive test" for scarlet fever isn't the facial appearance, it's a confirmed culture of Group A strep from the strep throat preceeding the rash.  For these reasons, I am removing the picture.  It is misleading to have it here, regardless of what your personal physician has told you.Danierrr (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Slapped cheeks?

message: The article mentions "slapped cheeks" and the "white mustache" as symptoms of scarlet fever. What about symptoms on people of non-European descent? Do people with dark skin still get a "white mustache" when struck by scarlet fever? Or does the disease only attack white people? — Morganfitzp (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be the first to admit that much medical and first aid literature is deficient in this regard. It may not be entirely the fault of the authors of the article, but more a reflection on the lack of good documented medical knowledge for treating certain conditions in non-white persons. --Waterspyder (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocentric article

message: Try comparing 02:05, 31 March 2008 with 23:45, 31 March 2008. That "very deadly" thing is almost certainly wrong.
--24.46.164.83 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: uncited and I've removed it. I've add a ref to history section which sets out some info on mortality in prior centuaries and why this might be so. David Ruben  Talk  18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Very Deadly"? gotta be incorrect

message: It may be helpful to have some epidemiological information, for example, what age groups does it strike, is it a problem in the developing/developed world, what % of people experience this at some point, etc.  If I come across this info I'll add it. Imogenne (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Given the prevalence and morbidity of SF before the 1950s, a section on the treatment and outcome of this disease in the pre-antibiotic era would improve the article. I don't have enough expertise in the history of medicine to do this myself. Growing up in the 50s and 60s my parents still had a dread of this awful disease. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical significance 

message: Shouldn't the possibility of diarrhea be mentioned before the "Treatment" section?
Wanderer57 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diarrhea 

message: The description at the top says the rash spares the face, and then the article later goes on to say the rash first appears on the face but not around the mouth. Please be consistent. --38.98.177.132 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rash On Face 

message: Scarlet fever has had quite a cultural significance in the history of the world.  Why has all that information been extracted from the article? Wickedjacob (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Margery Williams, not Marjorie--sorry. WordwizardW (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow, what happened to this article? 

message: This article needs a "Prognosis" section, like "Measles" and other infectious disease articles.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prognosis 

message: Could someone with more expertise in this area find out what the test is called referred to in the section in the middle of the article? I've been browsing page history for a while and it's unclear what is the correct name, as its been altered several times.74.96.70.179 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing section (9.1)

message: The sentence below implies that plummeting deaths from scarlet fever were due to antibiotics which does not appear to be correct.
"Before the availability of antibiotics, scarlet fever was a major cause of death."
Deaths from scarlet fever were plummeting way before antibiotics were available to treat it. This decreased mortality rate was most likely due to the Sanitation Revolution from the mid-1800s into the early 1900s. 
I have viewed statistics on England and Wales scarlet fever mortality rates from 1838 to 1978 from the record of mortality in England and Wales for 95 years as provided by the Office of National Statistics. 
I have never edited wikipedia before and I don't want to step on anyones toes so to say, so I would appreciate any advice on the "correct" way to go about this.
Dora79 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding what I percieve  to be a fallacy in the article. 

message: "The first toxin that causes this disease was cloned and sequenced in 1986 by Weeks and Ferrett" I thought you could only sequence DNA - of an organism. Surely a toxin is not an organism and does not have DNA?Billlion (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Can you sequence a toxin

message: The link in the microbiology section to SpeA actually redirected to Pseudomonas exotoxin. Fixed it to go to erythrogenic toxins (streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxins). Rrcopley12 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong redirect

message: Below is my peer review as part of the WikiEd Course:
Is the article clear and understandable? 
-Overall the article was very clearly written and easy to understand. One suggestion is to try and clean up the prevention section. The discussion of the vaccine approach is hard to follow, which I think that is mostly due to sentence structure so it should be an easy fix. (i.e. "The vaccine approach has more potential to do so since vaccine formulations can target multiple subtypes of the bacteria.")
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? 
-All sections of the article seem equally and appropriately weighted, except for the history section. The history section is one of the longest sections and the level of detail included is probably beyond the scope of the article.
Is there anything that distracted you? 
-I did not find anything in particular to be distracting in this article. 
Would it be understandable to a non-medical person?
-Overall I thought that the article was well written for the intended audience of laypersons and the images of the different rashes are great. There are a couple of sections in the article that I think would be difficult to understand for a non-medical person. 
-A few examples: In the signs and symptoms section, the dermatology nomenclature may be hard to follow (i.e. petechiae). In the same section instead of saying "inguinal and axillary regions" maybe just use groin and armpit.
-The pathophysiology/microbiology section is super technical but I think that is largely unavoidable.
-Differential diagnosis section. The dermatology terms (i.e. exanthem, morbiliform, maculopapular) would be hard to understand, but the wikilinks provided gives the reader the ability to easily clarify.
Is the article neutral and balanced? 
-the article does appear to be neutral and well balanced
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? 
-No 
Is the supporting evidence from unbiased sources? 
-Yes
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
-none 
Is the article supported by reliable evidence? 
-Yes, all reference appear to be from well known journals or publishers
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? 
- Antibiotic resistance section: "Previously, observed resistance rates had been 10–30%; the increase is likely the result of overuse of macrolide antibiotics in recent years."
-History section: there are entire paragraphs that don't have a single reference cited. 
Are the citations from publicly available sources?
-A number of the books cited don't include an ISBN or other clickable link or easier reference but they could be accessed if the general public was so inclined.
Does the article paraphrase or plagiarize? 
-None that I am aware of
Is the cited evidence current?
-Yes, a majority of the references are from within the last 5 years. 
Other
-I made a handful of minor spelling/grammar changes and added internal wiki links for some of the technical words used.
JSShin (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for the review! I definitely spent some time this week researching the historical information about scarlet fever to fix that part of the article, especially all of the paragraphs that had no references listed. I also went back and re-worded the section on vaccines because you were definitely correct in that it was hard to follow. Thanks again! --Emb47 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I removed the following statement:
:"In 1879, The Ingalls and Nelson family contracted Scarlet Fever, making Mary Ingalls blind."
For the following reasons:
# It does not have a source at all.
# Mary Ingalls actually did not have Scarlet fever, but instead it was probably meningoencephalitis. I know this because it's on the Mary Ingalls Wikipedia page, which is sourced by several articles. Very likely, many did refer to it as scarlet fever before, but new evidence suggests it's untrue. If you can cite a source where originally all those years ago people believed it was scarlet fever and you have sources for that, then please return to it and rewrite it but it's important to note that it probably is untrue. How to find out is beyond my personal knowledge.
MagnoliaSouth (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed mention of the Ingalls and Nelson families. 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mbl5581 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plagues and People