Talk:Abdominal aortic aneurysm

message: Is diabetes a factor? I remember I read about this somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.173.17 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Diabetes is negatively associated with AAA. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27414727/ 203.0.31.68 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Diabetes

message: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/10/735?etoc JFW | T@lk 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic review 

message: I'm gonna try and give this article a bit of life over the next few days. There should be a sea of sources out there to use so I'll get looking and post them below. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's MCOTW, and it seems I never implemented any of the above reviews. I'll try to get to it soon, but someone else is more than welcome to help me out. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the MEDMOS headings and layout could be applied - any objections? L∴V 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like there are any signs and symptoms listed either, let alone in their correct section. Should probably sort this out. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: We should probably bear in mind Aortic aneurysm, which uses this article as it's further detail extensively - yet isn't as referenced, and Thoracic aortic aneurysm, which is practically a stub, might benefit from some cross pollination whilst in the area... L∴V 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: The diagnosis section talks more about classification than diagnosis.  Will try to fix this when I have time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: I'm sorry that I've been absolutely no help during this MCOTW, but there we are. I've just given the current article a brief overview (I'm going to move the MCOTW onward very soon) and noticed the presence of a few really doubtful sources.
* Treska is not in English
* Emedicine is not a WP:MEDRS
* A lot of the remaining content is primary research, not secondary
Anyone interested in doing some more work on this (I can't commit too much)? JFW | T@lk 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sources 

message: I will attempt to add to the imaging section but being new to this, and seeing the article may need a little work in general, can we reference texts such as Kumar and Clark, Oxford Handbook etc? And if so would this include Sutton, Grainger & Allison, (the language in these are more easily customizable to the general reader in my experience)? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textbooks 

message: A more detailed description of the open surgical procedure (which is still very common) is needed, perhaps a vascular surgeon could be recrutied to do this. I would do it myself, but I don't have the references to back my preexisting knowledge. Ronk01 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information on surgical treatment 

message: I wrote a literature review concerning the infected aneurysm. Should I create a new page (how?) and copy/paste it? I am fairly new to wikipedia.Roerbakmix (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infections of abdominal aneurysm 

message: Ruptured AAA has a distinctly difference prognosis and treatment from un-ruptured AAA. I don't think this is adequately addressed in the current article, but I also don't think I deserves its own article.  Thoughts? Bakerstmd (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind. I think there should be a separate page for Ruptured aortic aneurysm or maybe Aortic rupture. I'll work on that. BakerStMD T|C 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruptured AAA 

message: Greater than 90% of people who develop a AAA have smoked at some point in their life.
The term "smoked" is ambiguous. It should be made clear in terms of amount or duration. "...smoked at least one pack of cigarettes." or "...smoked for at least a month." Does smoking part of a cigarette put a person into the 90%? If so, the statistic is not very useful.
Someone should clarify that part of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.51.149.199 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the research studies that look at risk factors like smoking often don't specify how much smoking qualifies a patient for the binary risk factor of "smoking" vs "non-smoking". Usually it means having been a regular smoker for an extended period of time (years), rather than just one or two cigarettes ever. BakerStMD T|C 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

text: is a good review of smoking and AAA pathogensis, and says there is strong evidence for a linear dose-response relationship between smoking and AAA development, implying the more you smoke the more risk you have. Feel free to add that. BakerStMD T|C 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: I removed "Australia has no guideline on screening" with the ref which accompanied it. We should not say something that has not happened or des not exist. Even were we a an encyclopedia about the English speaking world why would we want to know that somehwere desnt have a policy? What about all the other countries in the world. Do tey have policies or not. We should surely publish all the countries which have policies before emntioning Autralia which doesnt. Including such a non-statement is really not helpful and certainly not encyclopedic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removng a ref'd negative statement

message: “Rates among women are one-fourth as high.” This comment follows the suggestion that male rates are 2-8% and needs clarification perhaps by a statement of rates for women explicitly. “One fourth as high” is I think unclear. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity