Talk:Aspiration pneumonia

message: Some info on treatment, prognosis etc would be very helpful :)
: Just what I was going to suggest!  Also, I'd like to see more actual not-too-jargony discussion of how aspiration might occur. (An example of a description that I found rather lacking: "during general anaesthesia" does not really explain what makes aspiration a particular risk during GA if the patient has eaten recently (although presumably it is, hence the standard NPO order).)
: On another note...Previous poster: you forgot to sign your comment.  Four tildes (~) in a row (see the explanation at the top of the "editing" page, right under where the title of the page (e.g., "Editing Talk:Aspiration pneumonia (section)") is shown in a really big font size, will do it automatically, with your Wikipedia ID if you have one (and are logged in), and your IP address if not.  (I recommend getting a Wikipedia account if you don't have one already and plan to post fairly often — for privacy's sake (to avoid posting your IP address), because it helps you establish an identity on Wikipedia, because it makes you a part of the community and not just a guest, etc.) Mia229 (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatments

message: Frequency of this occurrence would be a possible section.  There is a lot of information lacking in the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is to find good references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of occurence 

message: I am currently a fourth year medical student at the University of Central Florida enrolled in a Wikiproject course.  I will be working on this article for the next few weeks. Below are the changes I will bring to this page.
-	Update all information to ensure that everything is consistent with current practice.
-	Edit the lead to better summarize existing information along with new material that will be added.
-	Add section differentiating aspiration pneumonia from chemical pneumonitis.
-	Expand on each individual risk factor as opposed to a list. 
-	Verify existing article material with proper references.
-	Expand on the implicated bacteria section, location section, diagnosis section, prevention section.
-	Add section on treatment, prognosis, and complications.
--D7ng77 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are doing a great job so far on your edits! Thank you for your efforts to improve the evidence base of this article. We greatly appreciate new medical editors on Wikipedia. JenOttawa (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I made a few small edits earlier today. Note: please change "patient(s)" to "people/person", which is preferred in Wikipedia. Please also note that when re-wording evidence from a review article use lay terminology that people without a medical background can understand. Once again, you are doing a great job so far. It is wonderful to see this article being improved so much. This article is getting a good 500-600 page views a day! While not as high as pneumonia (10,000+ page views/day), it is incredible the number of people/patients that your editing initiative is reaching. Thanks again, JenOttawa (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student Editing Initiative: University of Central Florida 

message: Hi,
Overall, great article and superb writing. This reviewer has found that you have organized the article in line with Wiki Medicine style guidelines (aside from a small set of bullet points in the Causes section). You did a great job adding many citations that are secondary sources/review articles/texts, and all within the last 5 years. Almost every sentence was appropriately supported. I also read through your initial work plan and believe that you accomplished your stated objectives. The introduction was brief yet comprehensive, there was clear differentiation between aspiration and chemical pneumonitis later on, individual risk factors were explained (with a small comment on anesthesia), and the new sections of treatment, prognosis, and complications were well written. This reviewer felt your attention to detail and expansion of the bacteria, location, diagnosis, and prevention sections turned the article into a more complete read and valuable source of information to any of the 5-600 patients viewing the article. Any suggestions I included are listed below. 
Comments:
Introduction:
Chemical Pneumonitis sentence begins a bit ambiguously - could try "Subtypes of pneumonia include chemical pneumonitis etc."
Causes:
Abrupt change from examples of pathologic causes to procedural/medicinal causes - could try to add a transition phrase.
All of the bullet points in Risk Factors could be changed to "Sub-heading 2" in the formatting panel on the editing page - may adhere more to style guide
Defining "putrid" may aid understanding; creating link to or briefly defining the process of bacterial cultures may aid in understanding
Location:
Defining "Aspiration" here or earlier may aid in understanding
If an image from a legally appropriate database can be found to represent right lung anatomy, may aid in understanding
Defining briefly or creating a link to "Consolidation" may aid in understanding
Diagnosis:
Great example of briefly defining terms in same sentence for lay readers
May include short list of most common physical exam findings to aid in understanding
Differential:
Defining "WBC" may aid in understanding
"Inflammation" - defining imflammation as an adverse result of body's own immune response to various things beyond bacterial/viral may help readers understand the distinction/subtly between the two 
Oral Hygiene: well written, understandable section
Enhanced Swallow: well written, understandable section
After Surgery: including brief cause-effect explanation behind anesthesia being a risk for aspiration and bullet listing a few of the most common risk factors for aspiration may aid in understanding
Prognosis: well written, understandable section
Complications: well written, understandable section
Best,
hl533
*A word document with specific highlights was also distributed via student organization's private network  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hl533 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Medicine Student Review 

message: This ref from 2017 calls chemical pneumonitis a type. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Aspiration pneumonia versus chemical pneumonitis=