Talk:Conjunctivitis

message: Hi all,
The term 'pink eye' is mentioned at the beginning of the article as a something conjunctivitis is commonly called.
Being from Australia, I've never heard anyone use that term, except on South Park. We only call it conjunctivitis.
To keep the article more formal, accurate and universal, should the term 'pink eye' appear in the definition only?
Cheers.
202.7.195.164 
(talk) 09:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the world calls it pink eye not just the US therefore it is appropriate in the lead.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: what's "much of the world" mean? The UK doesn't use the term 'pink eye' either86.153.207.2 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In China, residents always use pink eye to name conjunctivitis. 38.207.128.37 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

text: We could use an article on Eye pain. Feel free to create it.  Sore eyes is a symptom not a disease so should not redirect here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The blurry and photoshoped pictures suck. they need to be replaced with real pictures that are in focus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proepro (talk • contribs) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Conjunctivitis is caused by fecal matter?  Does anyone have a source for this besides a fictional movie?  The article goes so far as to claim that this is "generally" the cause of bacterial conjunctivitis.  Let's verify this or remove it. Ceresly (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: There is a statement that prompts a question, "the excess amount of fecal matter in your tear duct." Exactly when does the amount of fecal matter in one's eye go from the appropriate amount to an excessive amount? I am unaware about the tolerable levels of ocular feces. Grey Hodge 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - unsupported nonsense removed. David Ruben  Talk  18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about causes 

message: Giant papillary conjunctivitis redirects here, although there is no mention of it on the page. Ged3000 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it to Allergic conjunctivitis, which has a small section about it. Cmcnicoll (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant papillary conjunctivitis 

message: Can someone write if pink eye is contagious and what ways it can be transmitted and contracted? I have absolutely no experience in the matter but would like to see the info.  i hear its from poop in the eye or someone farts on your pillow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.231.151 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission? 

message: but the picture at the start of symptoms makes it look like it does! Does anyone have a different one ...? Malcolmcoles (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It doesn't make you go crosseyed ... 

message: "In past times breast milk was often used to relieve the symptions[sic] of conjunctivitis." Interesting factoid, but I would like to see a reference for this statement. Could the contributor add a source for this? 210.213.197.237 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  breast milk used to relieve the symptoms? 

message: At the start this article says conjunctivitis is normally caused by a virus, and later that it is normally by bacteria.  I realise it can be caused by both but surely we can't say "normally" and not be consistent? 131.111.186.95 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Find some reviews thru www.pubmed.com and feel free.  Lots needs to be done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virus or Bacteria? 

message: Should this be mentioned ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemorrhagic conjunctivitis 

message: It makes sense to have pink eye redirect here, but I redirected pinkeye to the viral conjunctivitis subsection, to make it more accurate. 
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/522242, "Classic "pink eye," or, more appropriately, acute follicular conjunctivitis caused by adenovirus"
http://www.ampath.co.za/antibiotguide/chapter12.htm, "Viral conjunctivitis (“pink-eye”)
Both of these links are in the article.
::Both are referred to as pink eye .Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more participation in the discussion is going to be needed to convince me of that. There are several verifiable sources here, but you have produced none of your own.  I am not saying that that term shouldn't be used here, just that it should be used more accurately.  Thanks, Aaron mcd (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided a reference. It is the one labelled [1] above.  Pink eye is a lay term and thus it meaning is used here as by lay people.  Conjunctivitis is the technical term.  Here is a second one  --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: No worries I do not mind debating issues.  Pinkeye is a layperson term not a technical one.  This encyclopedia needs to mesh both the technical with the general.  The mayo clinic is a good enough source to reference a point like this.  We could discuss the distinction that some people use pink eye to refer to viral conjunctivitis only and some people use it to refer to all conjunctivitis.  I read an interesting paper recently that said that regardless of the cause of conjunctivitis that it is appropriate to manage it conservatively for 3 days similar to ear aches.  We rarely determine the cause by doing swabs except in the cause of newborns.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: pink eye

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: doi:10.1001/jama.2013.280318 - JAMA this week. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: It is proposed that Conjunctivitis be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation to edit

message: In the Management - Bacterial section, I think there is a word missing from the phrase "or who have very discharge". Any idea what it should be, or how else to fix the phrase/sentence? - ZeniffMartineau (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word or wrong grammar? 

message: In this edit some content was restored after I'd removed it.  This content makes medical claims without adequate sourcing for this type of content and also contains inappropriate external links.  I'm not going to edit war, but rather follow the recommended bold, revert, discuss cycle. I suggest that  should self-revert and discuss the controversial edit here.  -- Scray (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate restoration 

message: There is a section that is currently at the end of the article that deals with historical aspects of conjunctivitis. It is only one sentence long, claim is made that "Kirk Patrick, was the first to have found the adenovirus that caused conjunctivitis" on the basis of a quote given within a Times of India article from 2011. While the source might support "Madras Eye" as a synonym, the claim about historical understanding lacks important details and doesn't fit with other published literature. For example, the 2015 Jhanji review has a section on microbiological characteristics (on page 247) that begins by describing part of the basic timeline in the advances of understanding around adenoviruses. Adenoviruses were first isolated by Rowe et al in 1953. Two years later Jawetz et al published on epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I seem to remember reading somewhere about radiation poisoning causing a form of conjunctivitis. I can't find the source of this. Can someone confirm or debunk this? The page on Radiation Burns mentions eye irritation in passing, but I'm not sure if they are talking about the same thing. 76.208.70.30 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. Often you see it from welding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiation?

message: I keep seeing statistics and information exclusive to the US, and little information on the rest of the world.
Did I not notice it, or is it missing?
Wikiduck81 (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global distribution and frequency