Talk:Hirschsprung's disease

message: Related to diagnosis (and I don't see how to launch a new section of "talk"): the lead sentence of "Signs and Symptoms" appears to have had someone(s) add a couple of qualifying remarks without looking at their impact on the sense of the sentence, and it's now a train wreck:
"Typically, Hirschsprung's disease is diagnosed shortly after birth, although it may develop well into adulthood, because of the presence of megacolon, or because the baby fails to pass the first stool (meconium)[5] within 48 hours of delivery."
Can someone who knows enough (e.g., who knows where the megacolon remark should tie in) please fix this sentence?  And is "develop" actually the right word there?  You could be born with a full set of bowel nerves and then have some disappear after you grow up?  Is the sentence supposed to mean the following?
"Typically, Hirschsprung's disease is diagnosed shortly after birth, or because the baby fails to pass the first stool (meconium)[5] within 48 hours of delivery, although it may develop well into adulthood as a result of megacolon, "
71.241.221.91 (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis section?

message: In the article it says "There used to be two steps typically used to achieve this goal." do they do it in one now? Does anybody know what has changed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongo Whack (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Treatment?

message: Someone put in a plug for a surgical ostomy book, Unwanted Baggage. There is nothing wrong with that in the context of this article, but it should be referenced with a citation at the end (with page numbers), rather than a statement like "Details of ostomical sugery and its results can be found in the book Unwanted Baggage by P. and E. Prosser."Druep (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange reference

message: I removed the citations needed tag, because it looks like the article is now fairly well referenced.  Also, I removed the tag describing the article as being too technical for most readers to understand, after working on it considerably.  I think the article is much more accessible now, but if anyone objects, let me know! Rytyho usa (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "citations needed" and "too technical" tags 

message: whether disease names should be rendered in the possessive or not remains a source of considerable controversy. i have my own feelings on the subject, but i'm not going into that debate here. all i'm going to say is that within an article, we should be consistent. alternating between hirschsprung disease and hirschsprung's disease just looks sloppy. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Possessive or not?

message: This is untrue. The abbreviation of Hirschsprung's disease is NOT HD. You could abbreviate every disease this way. HD is an abbreviation for Huntington's disease. Nobody would guess you're referring to Hirschsprung's disease. You can't just invent abbreviations... 182.255.99.214 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're on the way to the whole truth. HD is indeed sometimes used to mean Hirschsprung disease, and it has been since long before Wikipedia existed (here's an example in PubMed from 1998). But what you've stumbled upon is the fact that almost every two-letter acronym, including almost every such acronym used in medicine, has many expansions (many meanings), which makes it a potentially ambiguous sign. Such potential ambiguity is pervasive in natural language even though it doesn't always work well, in terms of clear communication—and the reason it ever works at all is that context usually narrows in on the intended meaning. One main way this happens is when a writer defines an abbreviation at first mention in a document and thus conveys to the reader, "when I say HD herein, it means Hirschsprung disease" (see the 1998 example). Another main way this happens is by the relative strength or weakness of certain senses  of an acronym compared with others—and this way, too, is also context-sensitive, because it depends on, for example, the subject matter of any given document. When people in health care say BP, you can usually expect that it probably means blood pressure, and in any given instance this is strengthened by the local context (for example, a nurse doing a physical examination may say BP and DOB to a colleague and no one wonders about ambiguity—they obviously mean blood pressure and date of birth). However, BP has at least 30 other expansion in other health care contexts, including buccopalatal (dentistry), bronchopulmonary (pulmonology), and breech presentation (obstetrics)—as well as boiling point in chemistry generally. Wikipedia has a list of medical abbreviations, but it is still way too underdeveloped to show the 2, 5, 10, or 30 different meanings that a typical medical acronym has. There are various good paywalled products that provide this info—databases of medical abbreviations. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "So-called" abbreviation "HD" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hirschsprung's disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000916124713/http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00335/bibs/9n6p426.html to http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00335/bibs/9n6p426.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified