Talk:Hemolytic–uremic syndrome

message: This page was discovered on a random search as an example of a page that does not have External links as the last section, as is usual.  Does anyone have any strong feelings about the order of end sections in this article or articles like this? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does have an ==External links== section (although it's not in the official order).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's what I meant: that it had one, but it wasn't last. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: - even in atypical HUS (which is often familial), factor H is to blame for platelet deposition. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factor H

message: "About 9% may develop end stage renal disease. About one-third of persons with hemolytic-uremic syndrome have abnormal kidney function many years later, and a few require long-term dialysis." This seems inconsistent - is it saying "About one third of those diagnosed with hemolytic-uremic syndrome end up with some degree of Chronic Kidney Disease. Ultimately, 9% progress to stage 5 CKD with only a few progressing to stage 5 CKD proximate to the diagnosis."?  BillpSea (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prognosis

message: I have some questions about the treatment section(s):
1. Why does the article have two?
2. Should we combine them?
3. Do we need the second?
4. Is the second one valid or useful?
5. Is there a better header for it than 'Treatment?'
The DarkArcher was here (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first move, I've merged them into the same section.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what all the correct answers are.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: I had this when I was 13 months old. Had this dude: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7542404.stm in charge of my case. What a hero.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.96.224 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUS 

message: There should be a separate causes and symptoms section.  I went to find the symptoms and can only find the causes listed under the symptoms.97.75.133.131 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the symptoms? 

message: Info on pathogenesis would be much appreciated!--Xris0 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good that you're trying to improve the article, but have you got a reference for what you're writing? There are some sources that may be helpful in the reference list, otherwise Pubmed would be a good place to try. Watermelon mang (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: pathogenesis

message: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30062-4 JFW | T@lk 16:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet seminar 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hemolytic-uremic syndrome. 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/20160408140013/http://www.rki.de/EN/Home/EHEC_Report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. to http://www.rki.de/EN/Home/EHEC_Report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
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) 23:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: doi:10.1111/jth.13956 JFW | T@lk 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathophysiology 

message: Much of the aHUS content should be removed since it's already covered on the aHUS article and it's potentially misleading here. The article seems to conflate the two in places, and in terms of content, it seems very imbalanced toward genetic pathologies, considering their extreme rarity relative to infectious HUS. My recent edit fixed a paragraph that discussed aHUS prognostic statistical figures in the middle of a paragraph about both infectious HUS prognosis and (I think) HUS prognosis overall, and it wasn't written in a way as to draw attention to a comparison or contrast between them. The whole article is like that, to a lesser extent. So, anyone reading this article is prone to conflating aHUS with infectious HUS with HUS overall.
Infection-induced HUS is many, many orders of magnitude more common than aHUS, so aHUS shouldn't be receiving more air time on this article than infectious HUS. It already has its own article, while infectious HUS does not. It seems like some editors are thinking this article is about the group of disorders called HUS, while other editors are thinking this article is about the infectious disorder called HUS that is by far the most common and well-known disorder with that name. Well, an article for infection-induced HUS could be created. But until then, I think this article should 1) discuss HUS as a whole, 2) list the many causes of HUS, and 3) discuss infectious HUS. Specific discussion about non-infectious disorders called HUS should be reserved for the aHUS article. To avoid confusion, the term "infectious HUS" can be used in the headings of sections that specifically describe infectious HUS. This article should of course include a link to the aHUS article, plus some brief discussion.
If instead it is considered imperative to refer to HUS as a group of disorders connected only by common clinical symptoms with common lower-order mechanisms, then the article is still very inadequate, because there are many distinct HUS etiologies. It's not just infectious HUS and genetic HUS (this article describes atypical HUS as "largely" genetic in origin, whatever that means). Here is a list from a comprehensive article, which this Wiki article cites:
* HUS infection-induced (Shiga and strep)
* HUS induced by disorders of complement regulation (genetic and acquired)
* ADAMTS13 deficiency (genetic and acquired)
* Defective cobalamin metabolism
* HIV infection
* Malignancy
* Cancer chemotherapy or ionizing radiation
* Calcineurin inhibitors and transplantation
* Pregnancy, HELLP syndrome, contraceptive pill
* Systemic lupus erythematosus, anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome
* Glomerulopathy
* Drug induced
So I would propose that a section be added near the top that briefly lists all the rarer etiologies (or just the well-established ones), along with inline links to any corresponding articles (currently existing or otherwise). Genetic HUS isn't especially more notable than any of the other above mentioned etiologies, so if genetic causes are to be mentioned then so should the others. Then, the rest of the article can get on with describing the subject of the article as a single thing — either infectious HUS or HUS considered as a whole, where appropriate.
Specific details (especially statistical figures) that concern atypical HUS in particular should not be added unless they're really important or offer some kind of affordance to open the aHUS article. Each section could have like, one sentence max about atypical HUS, with a link to direct the user to the atypical HUS article. I think in this case it's perfectly reasonable to have multiple inline links to the aHUS article, because not everyone is going to read the whole article from top to bottom. Some readers may just skip to the prognosis section. Aminomancer (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with discussion of aHUS