Talk:Lymphedema

message: I would like to also point out that primary lymphedema is lymphedema that patients are born with and can be full body lymphedema as well with swelling in all extremedies, trunk, abdomen, face, neck and other areas of the body.  Lymphedema is not always confined to just one area or limb in many people.
I would like to also point out that lymphedema can be and is disabling and progressive no matter how much a patient is compliant.  There are many other conditions that go hand in hand with lymphedema as well such as high blood pressure, thyroid issues, ect and these can be found in "Silent Waves" by Dr. Chikly.  
The best source for patients is to educate themselves and to challenge any questionable information found on the web about lymphedema.  You may use my site, http://www.lymphland.com as a link or resource.
Tinabudde 00:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I

message: I have added additional information on staging and grades, as well as a couple of sources.  The elephantiasis described in Stage 4 may be what the previous poster might have indicated by "full body" Lymphedema. Erzahler 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Information 

message: Ace(r) wrap. I know Ace has the most recognized brand name, but that style, Ace(r), is odd. Perhaps it could be substituted with "compression wrap" or something similar. Is there a better term? --Kevin L'Huillier 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Thank you to the person who posted this article – a great service!
That being said, I would like to make a couple of suggestions that as a technologically-challenged layperson I don’t feel qualified to make myself:
- most of what is currently in the “Symptoms” section refers to symptoms of infection, not of LE as such, and might better be moved to a new “Complications” section, noting at the same time the need to seek medical attention for infections
- specifics could be added to the skin care section (scrupulous cleanliness using soapless cleanser, moisturization etc.).
Hope this helps!
:* Thanks for the helpful comments. :o)  The infection usually is a complication instead of a symptom of LE.  However, there have been reported cases where an infection has been a cause of LE, although it is not all that common.  I'll take your comments into consideration.  Thanks! Erzahler 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: About halfway down this page there's some excellent images. However in the bottom series, the 2 photos on the right hand side don't show up for me, Image:100_0587.JPG and Image:100_0583.JPG. However if I look for them it looks like they're still there. Any thoughts? The images are pretty big, maybe they need boxing in somehow?--PaulWicks 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the images on this page are quite useful I wonder if some could be found that show an 'average' case of lymphedema (the top images show what is apparently a case gone untreated for a very long time, which has developed into elephantiasis, and the second row depicts a case that, as I understand it, involved complications with obesity). Lymphedema is quite a common condition and I fear that people looking for information on the subject will suffer unnecessary worry if they are confronted uniquely with pictures of extreme cases. Anyone have any ideas on available images? Nofoto (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the pictures used are not representative of most people's experience of lymphedema. It would be useful if someone could find a photo of an upper limb with moderate lymphedema, given that this is more common. I am concerned that this photo will scare people who have just been diagnosed with lymphedema and don't understand that the current pictures represent a very extreme case that is the result of many years without treatment. 7 May 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.112.133 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Image?

message: Okay, people, we need to have a little discussion here.  Unless we can provide an undeniable reason why the certification links are being removed, we need to reinstate them.  Regardless of the website's commercial content, these organizations provide legitimate Lymphedema certifications which are recognized by the medical community.  Indeed, physical therapists cannot practice Lymphedema therapy without one of these certifications.  So let's stop this senseless back-and-forth reverting/re-reverting of these links and come to a concensus on this.  Being a Lymphedema patient myself and having researched this topic, I believe I do have some knowledge in this area. Erzahler 02:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, I think WP:EL is quite clear on this:"Links normally to be avoided: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services" I'm not suggesting that the links would not be useful for a prospective physiotherapist who wanted to find somewhere they could obtain a training course in the United States. However, this is really a tiny segment of the possible readership of this article. I don't think by removing the links we are doing anyone a disservice, because the easiest thing for them to do if they want to find such a course is to Google it. For other examples, physiotherapy has national organisations in its external links but not training courses, ditto speech pathology. So unless there's a stronger argument for why the links should be included, I don't think they should be reinserted. Interested in other views too. --PaulWicks 12:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with PaulWicks. As he says, the certification link does seem to meet the Wikipedia guidelines concerning links to be avoided. The way I personally would articulate it is that the person who came to this article looking for information on lymphedema is not going to find further or fuller information by following the link.
Awien 17:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, then, answer this question... how am I supposed to provide links to legitimate certification bodies when Wikipedia says I can't do it?  This is not acceptable.   I put to you that the guidelines need to be tweaked a little.   Since you all seem to know so much about it, then YOU can edit the page.  Obviously, someone who has Lymphedema doesn't know anything about it.  I wash my hands of it! Erzahler 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Erzhaler, this isn't an issue about being knowledgeable about Lymphedema. I freely admit I know very little about it other than some second hand information from patients with ALS or Parkinson's. However the fact is that Wikipedia is here to function as an enyclopedia, not a directory of weblinks, and these guidelines apply equally to any article. I am having trouble seeing why you feel that someone wanting to be certified in treating lymphedema would come to Wikipedia first, and if they didn't find what they were looking for would give up immediately. Surely it is more likely they would try Google first? Or, if they were existing professionals, their statuatory bodies? --PaulWicks 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see your point, but there are plenty of counter-examples in other articles. For instance, whilst not perfectly comparable there are no links to suppliers in diabetes, COPD, asthma, or bed sores. Interested in other views too. --PaulWicks 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After being away from this article for a while, I can see there are quite a few supplier links.  Perhaps we should come to a consensus about leaving only a few links and deleting the rest.  Or maybe delete the supplier links altogether.  I agree (after being away and giving the matter some thought) that only factual information should be retained.  Erzahler 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reminded of this by the appearance of still another supplier link. Propose to delete all of them. Any dissent? Awien 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding/Removing Certification Links

message: I'm not sure, maybe I should have added weasel words instead of NPOV, but I suspect my tag will be yanked promptly anyhow. Please, try to keep articles from sounding like they are about the latest new "unrecognized" disease that everyone has, like http://www.cabrillo.edu/~pkaplan/misc/lackofwater.html (yet another "75% are chronically dehydrated" myth page). I don't claim to know anything about this, and it is clear people are already watching to make sure information here is verifiable, so I'm limiting my comments to tone. The entry section in particular reads in a rather alarmist manner, or at least that is how I read it. Perhaps others react differently. Please do not be insulted by this, I'm not saying anyone is wrong in their facts. I simply feel the tone is wrong for wikipedia, that it is presenting only the view of the admittedly small portion of medical community that recognizes this. That does NOT make it fake: look how long it took for AIDS to be generally recognized, or think back to doctors saying smoking is GOOD for you, just consider your tone please. I had also tagged it with lacking references but promptly removed that. I do feel it needs a great deal more support in references to make the case. Thank you. Fitzhugh 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. Awien 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note.  This tone problem is a particular issue in articles for relatively uncommon diseases which are edited primarily by patient-activists.  The underlying thinking basically seems to be, "I got it, and I met several people online who have it, so it can't really be that rare."  It's a short step from that idea to claims that it's overlooked, unrecognized, and the source of all your problems.  Diseases which are particularly hard to diagnose (usually due to vague symptoms) are also prone to this.  Please continue to alert editors to your concerns as you find them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads very much like it is written by pseudoscience proponent, regardless of validity 

message: External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience.  Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.  
The following kinds of links are inappropriate:
*  Online discussion groups or chat forums
*  Personal webpages and blogs
*  Multiple links to the same website
*  Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
*  Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)
I realize that some links are "helpful to patients," but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: What medical professional does one consult if suspicious of lymphedema?  Endocrinologist?  
One should consult their primary care provider. The primary care provider may refer to a specialist, such a doctor who specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation (a physiatrist).
Please say more about treatment of abdominal lymphedema.  I had a friend with that.  When he got in the hospital, they put him on dialysis and he lost 200 lbs in 3 weeks.  
How is lymphedema associated with kidney failure?   Or is the abdominal fluid from kidney failure different?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.108.58 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions 

message: For many years, breast cancer surgeons advised patients not to lift more than 15 pounds with the arm affected by lymph node removal due to breast cancer treatment.  New studies show that women who exercise and use the affected arm are less likely to suffer lymphedema.  Of course, the new information seems to be much more logical than the previous recommendations that advised to limit exercise and activity.  The activity would seem to keep the lymph liquids moving and lymph tissue healthier.  Massage of the arm also seems to be beneficial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.190.183 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reports that change previous "recommendation by breast cancer surgeon"