Jump to content

Talk:Asthma: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mr.Bip (talk | contribs)
212 edits
Re: Mortality statistic
 
(876 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{fac}}
{{Article history
{{oldpeerreview}}
|action1=PR
{{MCOTWprev}}
|action1date=20:25, 11 August 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Asthma/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=20799647


|action2=FAC
== Listing oxygen as a treatment ==
|action2date=11:27, 2 September 2005
Anyone object to listing oxygen as a treatment? In South Australia, ambulance paramedics switch over to oxygen when inhaled bronchodilators are not working.
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asthma/archive1
Hospital emergency medical teams administer adrenaline, which is also being considered for use by ambulance paramedics.
|action2result=promoted
Also additional symptoms: sweating, panic, anoxia, unconsciousness and death.
|action2oldid=22382627
-- [[User:Lawsonsj|Lawsonsj]] 21 Aug 2003


|action3=PR
Oxygen is given to alleviate the hypoxia that is the result of the asthmatic attack, and not to treat the asthma per se. It does nothing to end the episode (unlike the treatments listed). As long as the distinction between the two is made, it would be a good addition. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 04:32, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
|action3date=20:16, 9 July 2008
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Asthma/archive2
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=224643331


|action4=FAR
== Revert ==
|action4date=22:49, 14 December 2008
[[User:203.221.225.81]] thought it would be nice to replace the whole page with a page lacking links, structure and general wiki style. Is there anything from [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Asthma&oldid=3382346 his labors] worth salvaging?? [[User:Jfdwolff|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 13:52, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asthma/archive1
|action4result=removed
|action4oldid=257752442


|action5=PR
[[User:Jfdwolff]], what was the reason for reverting my addition of a link to a (albeit still short) list of diseases that involve gene promoter mutations? [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 2005-02-01 USA ~18:40 [[Eastern Standard Time|EST]]
|action5date=17:51, 9 November 2010
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Asthma/archive3
|action5result=reviewed
|action5oldid=395732211


|action6=GAN
==Links with dermatitis==
|action6date=22:53, 27 January 2013
|action6link=Talk:Asthma/GA1
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=535170724


|maindate=October 5, 2005
As a layman I keep coming across links between asthma and [[dermatitis]]. Anybody able to include anything on this?
|currentstatus=FFA/GA
--[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 00:08, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
|topic=Biology and medicine
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Top|pulmonology=yes|pulmonology-imp=Top|MCOTM=prev|selected=yes|translation=yes |translation-imp=Top }}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
<!-- -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Asthma/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Backwardscopy|title=ASTHMA, the alternative approach|url= http://books.google.ca/books?id=1OOnpq_CCWAC&pg=PT24 |author= Erika Szabo| year=2012|comments=Extensive copy and pastes of large sections of Wikipedia without appropriate attribution or release under the appropriate license.}}


== infobox image caption grammar ==
:Dermatitis is an aspecific term, but in this context probably refers to [[eczema]]. As it happens, I've just done a major rewrite of [[allergy]] and started [[atopic syndrome]]&mdash;I hope this answers some of your questions. Generally, there is clustering of eczematous skin conditions and allergic diseases, including asthma. [[User:Jfdwolff|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<BR>[[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 00:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


The infobox pic has featured goofy grammar since Produde29499's june 27 edit (almost a month as of writing!). I'd fix this but I'm unregistered and the article is semi-protected. "This is an image of an asthmatics airways, it become swollen and full of mucous." [[Special:Contributions/73.132.7.56|73.132.7.56]] ([[User talk:73.132.7.56|talk]]) 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::That's interesting. As I understood it eczema and ''atopic dermatitis'' were interchangeable - but ''AD'' is more generally used in the States and ''eczema'' in the UK. I say this as a reader, not an expert. My source would have been fairly good. I'll look at your links, if they don't clarify this question perhaps you could do so for me here? Would be most grateful. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod]] 00:44, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


== Ephedrine ==
:::Just to add to that: [[eczema]] currently redirects to [[dermatitis]]. You seem to be implying that that is wrong?


Shouldn't ephedrine be mentioned? [[User:Paul Magnussen|Paul Magnussen]] ([[User talk:Paul Magnussen|talk]]) 18:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
== Link Between Allergies and Asthma ==


== Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 ==
There is a definite [http://www.aaaai.org/patients/advocate/2002/spring/jaci.stm link] between common environmental allergies and asthma. Although the direct connection is not known 70% of asthma sufferers also have allergic Rhinitis, also known as a runny nose.


{{edit semi-protected|Asthma|answered=yes}}
Also asthma is not a disease. It is an immunological disorder. It is a syndrome of hypersensitivity.
From Environmental section, Change:


"Exposure to indoor volatile organic compounds may be a trigger for asthma; formaldehyde exposure, for example, has a positive association.[50] Phthalates in certain types of PVC are associated with asthma in both children and adults.[51][52] While exposure to pesticides is linked to the development of asthma, a cause and effect relationship has yet to be established.[53][54] A meta-analysis concluded gas stoves are a major risk factor for asthma, finding around one in eight cases in the U.S. could be attributed to these.[55]"
:Listen, if you think this article is wrong then [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold]] and make changes yourself. Asthma most certainly ''is'' a disease - it has particular symptoms and risk factors that delineate it from other conditions. Allergy plays an important role, but stressful life events contribute to many acute exacerbations. Furthermore, not all asthmatics have the atopic syndrome. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


by adding this at the end:
==Lungs OnLine - should it be referenced or not?==


"Indoor houseplants improve air quality by reducing levels of formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide."<ref>https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjshs1/78/4/78_4_456/_article/-char/ja/</ref><ref>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4258716/#b23-eht-29-e2014014</ref> [[User:Surftacular|Surftacular]] ([[User talk:Surftacular|talk]]) 21:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the [http://www.lungsonline.com/asthma.html Lungs OnLine link] that [[68.206.248.92]] added back in Oct 2004 to the External Links section. I can't find information on who is responsible for maintaining the Lungs OnLine resource, and there are no authorship statements or dates associated with the information there. For these reasons I'm wondering if the Lungs OnLine link should be removed in favor of some other linkage that has better information about origin and purpose. What do you think? Or should I just shut up and delete it if I don't like it? [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 2005-02-01 USA 18:50 [[Eastern Standard Time|EST]]


:This is not true. Indoor houseplants do not substantially affect indoor air quality. https://www.lung.org/blog/houseplants-dont-clean-air [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
==Asthma mortality==
Should we mention asthma is still potentially fatal?
:*It would be quite appropriate. Please add what you think would best convey the history and present status of asthma as a cause of mortality. [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 07:06, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

== Theories of asthma pathogenesis ==

I'm thinking that, per Wikipedia practice, the theoreticals in the article should be trimmed or presented in a different manner, particularly in the [[Asthma#Pathogenesis|Pathogenesis section]]. I wanted to toss this into discussion and wait a while for input before hauling out an axe and chopping away; I do realize that there is support for a plethora of theories and don't want to diminish their importance with respect to stimulation of research, but perhaps they should be presented as that ... topics for research. Comments? [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 07:13, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

== Butekyo claptrap ==

I removed this section because it is obviously quackery and devoid of any merit whatsoever. Two major hallmarks of charlatanism are 1) unsubstantiated claims and more importantly 2) demand that the person pay for "classes" to learn a "natural" (in the sense of not requiring machinery or supplies) technique. Having read the writeup on Butekyo, I note further that patients who go to these classes are then required to swear not to reveal the "technique" to others. Rubbish of the worst variety. I and other members of my family have dealt with asthma all our lives, and I assure you that breathing exercises do not by any means take the place of drug therapies. If this Butekyo nonsense stays in here, then I guess we also need to mention homeopathy, naturopathy, crystals, magnet therapy, falun gong, and every other "alternative medicine" we can think of. [[User:Jeeves|Jeeves]] 15:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Whilst the claims made for improved lung function have not been shown by independant research, there is some usefullness in the technique. It is long recognised that anxiety or distress aggrevate the sense of difficulty in breathing that sufferers experience during an attack (anxiety increases attempted respiration rate and the extra effort of struggling with breathing increases oxygen demand). I was always taught to be reassuring and to try and help the patient relax whilst assessing and treating acute cases in casualty. What has been shown from such techniques as Butekyo is not that lung function improves, but that patients are less anxious about their asthma and make less use of their salbutamol bronchodilating drugs for mild symptoms (use of steroid inhallers remains the same). So whilst it does little for the disease itself and I agree with your points on exagerated claims & cost, patients may report mild symptomatic benefits. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] 20:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

== vegetarianism and exercise ==

As an asthma sufferer, I've never heard of vegetarianism being recommended as a treatment, so I removed it. Certainly some foods can provoke allergic reactions, which may induce attacks, but just as many people are allergic to fruits/veggies as anything else. "Regular exercise" is another thing I've never heard of for treating asthma. If anything, some asthmatics must ''avoid'' certain exercises to avoid attacks. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this (there are many asthma sufferers in the world and I am only one). [[User:Jeeves|Jeeves]] 09:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:You're most certainly right. It's not standard medical practise to recommend vegetarianism as a treatment for asthma or being useful to help prevent asthma. As you said in the above section, charlatans abound everywhere. [[User:Alex.tan|Alex.tan]] 09:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I would be careful about throwing around the word "charlatan" before doing a search of the scientific literature. Below are references which report that vegetarians have reduced asthma exacerbations and medication use and that switching to a vegetarian diet achieves the same effect. It is also well known that regular, moderate cardiovascular exercise can reduce the number of asthma attacks.
1-Knutsen SF, Lifestyle and the use of health services. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1171S-1175S.
2-Lindahl O, Lindwall L, Spangberg A, Stenram A, Ockerman PA, Vegan regimen with reduced medication in the treatment of bronchial asthma, J Asthma. 1985;22(1):45-55.

: One single study in thirty-five patients done in 1985 showing an improvement for vegetarians isn't really strong evidence. And the other study merely shows a relationship, no evidence at all that is a causal relationship. Apart from these two studies I couldn't find anything useful on the subject. But moderate exercise is indeed advisable. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] 14:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

==Ideas==

First - I think the main image is good, but not what we want for the feature image. I think the best thing would be a picture of someone using an inhaler. Having a human face to a disease is always helpful. I did a google search for government images about asthma, buit I couldn't find anything that was all that good for our purposes. Also, I downloaded a few papers to read up on the pathophysiology of asthma. I'll rewrite that section of this article - as it is, it's far too jargon-filled to be a much use to the average reader.

Things that need to be improved (an incomplete list):
* The epidemiology section
* Writing quality of the introduction
* Pathology and Treatment sections should be written as real paragraphs, not big lists
::I'll tackle this one. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]]
* Also, I think it would be nice to have a historical perpsective on asthma - even mild asthma used to be a debilitating condition before the advent of inhalers
::On that note, I think a list of famous asthma sufferers would be interesting. I know lots of famous athletes have had asthma, in addition to intellectuals like [[Marcel Proust]]
[[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 17:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

==Rewrite==

I sat down this afternoon and rewrote a lot of this article, as you can see in the history. Mostly, I rewrote and rearranged the introduction, played with the formatting, moved the image down to the "Pathology" section, and completely rewrote the Pathology section. Let me know what you think.
::P.S. I did spend a considerable amount of time researching and writing the Pathology section, so if you have any issues with it, I would appreciate a note about edits you make. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 03:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

===Wrong tone for wikipedia===
*This is technically very good with a detailed description of the immunological processes involved. However, as a mere [[GP]], I struggled to understand it, got bored and started skipping; I do not think that, as an encyclopedic article, it is currently useful to a non-medical newly-diagnosed asthmatic who would be trying to learn the basics about asthma. Unlike the comment above ('Theories of asthma pathogenesis' suggesting taking an axe to the article) I do not suggest removing the technical stuff, but it urgently needs to be in a separate section '''at the end''' of the article. I would leave in their current place the '''general''' discussion bits on the theory of pathogenesis/pathology.
**The structure of the article needs be 3-levels: the general introduction, a lay guide to cause/symptoms/diagnosis/treatment and then a technical discussion.
*Asthma diagnosis is '''not''' via pulmonary function (spirometry) testing for the majority:
**Children can't do the tests, diagnosis is by history taking and confirmed by response to treatment
**In adults, diurnal-variation or reversibility to bronchodilators using Peak Flow Rate Meters is the norm (at least in the UK)
**Spirometry was rarely performed (in UK), being largely a hospital test, although becoming a little more common in General Practice now. Spirometry is usually used if the diagnosis is in doubt or chronic obstructive airways disease is instead suspected.
*A greater emphasis needs be made to distinguish treatments for symptom control ('''relievers''') verses disease modification ('''preventers'''). The current passage is too alarmist, very few asthmatics are so severe as to need nebulisers. There is a ladder of treatment depending upon severity (UK NICE/SIGN) that needs adding.
I shall await comments (being Collaboration article of the week), before editing the overall structure... -[[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] 21:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
::David - I appreciate your comments. I welcome the effort to translate what I've written into more comprehensible language (and if you think that is bad you should read what was there before I edited the article). Working in a lab talking about science all day, one loses track of what a layperson can and cannot understand easily. Also, I agree that the article makes asthma seem like a death sentence. There are, of course, many different degrees of asthma, including the kind I suffer from, excercise induced asthma. I was hoping the physicians in the crowd could flesh out more of the clinical aspects of the disease. The "Signs and Symptoms" and "Diagnosis" sections are pretty fragmented - please modify it as you see fit. I think a GP's perspective is exactly what we need for those sections. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:::P.S. I just looked over the changes you did make, and they make good sense. It would be great to have a US physician look over it and modify it for any practices that differ in America. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 22:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:David - actually, after second thought, I think the structure of the article should stay. Look at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Cleanup|this]] template on the Clinical medicine Wikiproject. I think it makes sense, and I would like to impose a regular structure on disease articles. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 04:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
::Ok, I agree, but can we have at least a non-professional introductory paragraph to the Mechanisms/Pathophysiology -[[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]] 07:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==Formatting issues==
Can someone help me out with the formatting at the top of the article, with the image and the infobox? I can't get it to look right on IE and Safari. It's really bugging me. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 00:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
:On my IE, The ICD box (floating right) sits embedded in the lead paragraph, with the text wrapped around. The image of the kiddo doesn't appear. On Firefox, the photo appears where it should in the lead section, the ICD box sits just below the photo, and the TOC sits where it should on the left. The robust conclusion that we can make from this of course is that IE is stupid.
:Seriously though, I don't know why it's happening. I went through the histories, and note that when you view the older revisions in IE, the picture turns up fine. In fact, even when you view the revision I just made [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asthma&diff=next&oldid=20674884],[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asthma&oldid=20674884] the image is there. It's only when you return to the actual page ([[Asthma]]) does the image disappear. —[[User:Encephalon|<font color=#000>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=#000>&zeta;</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Encephalon|<font color=#000>&Sigma;</font>]] 06:02:25, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
::It's the cache. Clear your cache, Bip. Firefox retrieves pages differently from IE, which seems to depend a lot more on the cache at the standard settings. It looks OK on IE now.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=#000>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=#000>&zeta;</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Encephalon|<font color=#000>&Sigma;</font>]] 06:04:50, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
::: Screenshot to your right. Was there anything else about the image and the box that bothered you, Bip? Regards—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=#000>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=#000>&zeta;</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Encephalon|<font color=#000>&Sigma;</font>]] 06:18:17, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
(Removed ss)—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=#000>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<sup><font color=#000>&zeta;</font></sup>]]&nbsp; 07:50:19, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

=="Layperson's Review" of [[Asthma]] article==

Hi Folks,

In response to a request by [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]], I've given the asthma article a "layperson's review." Some of the things I stumbled over and a few ideas for addressing them are listed below. I'm also willing to help implement them if there's something you want to address but aren't sure how.

I've never really done this sort of review before, but I hope you'll take these comments as they're meant -- as constructive criticism and suggestions -- rather than as any sort of complaining or insistence that anything be changed. I think you've put together a great article -- and I certainly learned a great deal reading it. --[[User:Avocado|Avocado]] 00:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

So here goes....


* It's not immediately clear from the beginning (unless, presumably, you have a medical background) that we're discussing a human medical condition. BTW, do animals other than humans ever have athsma?

===General stylistic notes===

* In general, I think the descriptions of athsma symptoms and causes would be easier for the layperson to understand if they explicitly compared the "normal" function with the "athsmatic" function of the organs and systems in question.

* I think the article reads a bit like it's addressed to a first-year med student, rather than to an average high school graduate. Say you had just diagnosed a kid with asthma and were explaining the diagnosis to his distraught mother (who's no rocket scientist but not especially dimwitted either -- say she works as a receptionist in the office down the street). How would you explain it? That might be the appropriate sort of style and tone to use.


===Technical style, jargon, etc===

* Opening of article is almost overwhelmingly technical. "Chronic inflammatory condition"? responsiveness of airways to stimuli? I imagine an introductory medical textbook might sound a bit like this.
**Why not at least open the article with a simple layman's explanation that asthma is a chronic condition that can cause difficulty breathing? Then the jargon has a context that might make it easier to puzzle out.

* Similarly, with terms like "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness", with no links to articles with further detail, and no explanation, the layperson is going to be easily lost.
** The jargon is presumably important for the medical reader, but you could either use non-medical terms to describe the symptoms, with the medical terms added in parentheses, or vice-versa.
** A bit of linking to other articles for the sake of vocabulary might help a bit (i.e. for words like "symptom", which is a common word but nonetheless outside of a lot of people's vocabulary), but isn't really a substitute for explaining terms that really are specific to the profession.
** One symptom of the jargon problem that I noticed is a tendency to use a whole lot of nouns and noun phrases (e.g. "leads to narrowing of the airways" instead of "causes the airways to become narrower").

* The diagnosis section is a bit better in terms of jargon, but could use proofreading.

* The Mechanisms section is the worst jargon offender. I know that it is in fact a technical discussion, but the first paragraph could be made accessible, and the others perhaps just a bit more comprehensible.

* The second and third paragraphs of "Pathogenesis" are IMHO the most accessible paragraphs in the article, and might be a good stylistic reference point. FWIW, this section seems to be essentially redundant with Epidemiology, and the chart showing the prevalence of Asthma is better explained by the information given in Pathogenesis than in Epidemiology.

===Miscellaneous===

* What on earth is the box on the right side titled "Asthma", with a couple of bizarre codes in it?

* I think it's great that there's a closeup photo of an inhaler. Do you think it might be more recognizable in profile?

----


This is a valuable criticism, Avocado. I hope you will contribute similarly to all future MCOTWs.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=#000>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=#000>&zeta;</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Encephalon|<font color=#000>&Sigma;</font>]] 14:04:45, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

:I add my thanks as well. I will work on modifying the article. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 06:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

==Technical errors==
The recent edits may have improved the readability but have introduced/highlighted several errors:
# Peak flow meters measure the restriction of airflow through the bronchi, not 'lung capacity'; a term that has a very specific meaning in lung function measurement.
# I would dispute the term 'Many' for those asthmatics with allergy. It is generally a tiny minority of the total. Yes a few people get asthma-like bronchoconstriction in the presence of cats or dogs and a greater number find they get symptoms along with their hayfever. But for the majority of asthmatics, direct allergy is not relevent to their disease and antihistamines have NO effect. (the use of serology tests of dubious significance does not prove an allergy, merely the presence of some antibodies)
# The terms used (at least in UK) for bronchodilators and steroid inhallers is very specifically 'Relievers' & 'Preventers'.
[[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]]<sup>[[User talk:Davidruben|talk]]</sup> 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:DR - I corrected the first two errors you found, which are my fault. I'm not a doctor (yet), so thanks for catching those things. I actually feel like there might be several more technical inaccuracies in the language in this article, but we need doctors to look at it to be sure. I think that the UK and US terms you mention in your last comment are both used in the article. If you see a problem, feel free to change it. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 01:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
::Sorry [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]], my internet link went paralytically slow, freezing my computer as I tried to implement the above changes myself - no intension meant to over-ride your own edits on these :-)
:: The article on [[peak flow meter]] makes the same error and I will correct too. [[User:Davidruben|David Ruben]]<sup>[[User talk:Davidruben|talk]]</sup> 01:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Dr. Ruben. Regarding the terms ''relievers'' and ''preventers'', perhaps it is a UK thing then? I, of course, can deduce their meaning, but an average patient in the United States would not recognize the terms. I don't really care about a U.S. vs. U.K. thing, but the terms ''reliever'' and ''preventer'' sound a bit too informal to me to be section titles (perhaps I just prefer overly formal speech?). I'm going to reword them slightly; please feel free to edit it further if you think appropriate. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 20:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

== Nominate for FAC? ==

I think this article has improved, and benefitted from the suggestions on peer review. I'd like to nominate it for [[WP:FAC|featured article status]]&mdash;any comments/objections? I hope it's up to par, but even if not, it will give us direction on how to improve this (and future) articles. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 01:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Good idea, KS. I am wondering about a couple of things though:
#'''References'''. The first two use the footnote template system, but the first doesn't work (I think the ref number in the article was removed). The second jumps to [1]. A larger issue I think we need to discuss at our MCOW or Lounge pages is what form of references should we use for our medical articles? If I recall correctly, the MoS is vague on this point. For us the matter will essentially boil down to Harvard vs. Vancouver, I should think. The footnote template on WP is essentially of the Vancouver form, and biomedical journals generally do follow that form; however, the problem with this is on WP that if any edit is made to a footnote in the article, I believe the "jumps" get screwed. More experienced users pls correct me if I'm wrong.
#'''Red links.''' Is it considered unwise to submit for FA with red links in the article? Should we start stubs on some important terms, eg. wheezing? I think I'll go ahead and get one or two started by tomorrow.
#'''Images.''' These need to be all cleared — it's the first thing they seem to look at on FAC.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 02:12:16, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
::I've had my eyes on getting this article to FA status for a while. I think it's probably close to ready, thanks to the last push by Encephalon, KS, and DR. I've just done a another combing through the article, added a few links and corrected a few typos. To address Encephalon's concerns: I think that WP articles are quite mixed when it comes to footnotes. I think that little recent research is discussed in this article, so I feel fine about using the general reference section at the end of the article without in-line citations. I don't think the red links are a problem in themselves either, but starting stubs is never a bad idea. And lastly - the images. Since I picked all of them myself, I can promise that they are all from government or public domain sources - I made super-sure that they would be OK. Double check them please. Let's nominate this article :) [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 05:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:::PS - On second thought, I feel like this article needs a "History" section before it would really be FAC quality. I can't find any good online resources on the history of asthma, and I don't have access to a library at the moment. If someone can add a section soon, that would be great. Otherwise, I would like to nominate this to FAC to see how close we are to the featured standard. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 06:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Mr.Bip and I briefly discussed the best way to do references a little while ago. I am not entirely certain what FA prefers; my feeling is to keep it this way and if the reviewers would like us to do it differently we can change it. Same for the red links&mdash;I don't think it will hurt us but we can always write stubs at least. The images should be fine&mdash;they all look properly tagged to me. Mr.Bip, a "history" section would be good, I agree. I'll see if I can scare one up, although I am not sure what I will be able to find. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 06:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I threw a "History" section together, but it could use some work. One of the sources I used was the abstract from PMID 6757243, but it would be nice to get the complete article, and PMID 14160430 looks to be a good source for history as well. If anyone has access to these articles, that'd be great; otherwise, I'll see if I can hunt them down at the hospital. I think we're ready to submit this FAC; what do you think? &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 07:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

== Helped needed for FAC ==

Hi guys, the nomination is going well, but the reviewers have brought up several things to add to the article. I will try to work on most of them, but there are a few I could use some help on. Does anyone have any information on links between smoking, COPD, and asthma? Also, any information about alternative medicine? How about athletes and asthma? See [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asthma]] for more. Thanks! &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 05:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

:Yep, saw that. The whole asthma-smoking issue has been quite heavily researched, and is important from several angles:
#the effects of smoking in adults with asthma,
#the effects in children inhaling 2nd hand smoke,
#relationship btwn maternal smoking during pregnancy and asthma in children, and
#the effects of smoking on the efficacy of glucocorticoids used for treatment.
:Incredibly, and I didn't know this until I looked, Cochrane doesn't have a single MA or protocol on any of the above. Cochrane Central lists 31 RCTs to do with various smoking-asthma issues. Cochrane does have some 125 SR/MAs related to asthma, per se. I can help with writing up the smoking bit, although I can't promise a time frame at the moment. Incidentally, that was an excellent catch by Dr. deWollf - I completely missed the fact that we'd forgotten smoking. However, you're supposed to be telling us these things ''before'' we go to FAC, JFW! LOL. :) —[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 05:58:16, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
KS and others - I have found information on each of these topics, here are some links. I'm going to go through them and modify the article. To be honest, I'm not really sure where to fit some of this stuff in, but here goes.
::*Asthma and Smoking: [http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/0300/0347.asp?index=4584/ Cleveland Clinic - Asthma and Smoking]
:::*PMID 15643345 (The influence of smoking on the treatment response in patients with asthma, Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol., 2005)
:::*PMID 12403881 (Exposure to indoor combustion and adult asthma outcomes: environmental tobacco smoke, gas stoves, and woodsmoke, Thorax, 2002)
::*Asthma and COPD: [http://www.aaaai.org/patients/seniorsandasthma/when_asthma_copd_coexist.stm/ AAAAI - When Asthma and COPD Coexist]
:::*PMID 15853852 (Asthma and COPD: differences and similarities, Int J Clin Prac, 2005)
::* Airway remodeling in asthma: PMID 12554904 (Pharmacotherapy and airway remodelling in asthma, Thorax, 2003) [http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/58/2/163 Full text]
::*Asthma and Athletes:
:::*PMID 9819287 (Prevalence of asthma in 1996 Olympic athletes)
:::*PMID 10984362 (Allergy and asthma in elite summer sport athletes)
::*Alternative medicine:
:::*[http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/2500/2503.asp?index=9574/ Alternative Therapy for Asthma - Cleveland Clinic]
:::*PMID 14749604 (Complementary and alternative medicine for bronchial asthma: is there new evidence?, Curr. Op. Pulm. Med. 2004)
:::*PMID 12532195 (Herbal remedies for asthma treatment: between myth and reality, Drugs Today (heard of this journal?), 2002)
:::*PMID 15907677 (The Buteyko breathing technique for asthma: a review, Complemen. Ther. Med., 2005)
All this in 20 minutes :) Clearly, we can bury ourselves in literature about this topic. Let's just go for an accurate overview of the topics (1-2 sentences), and refer to links as necessary. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 06:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
*Strong work, gentlemen (apologies for the assumption if you are female, Encephalon). I will try to look these up and put them in the article. It'll take me a couple days because I am on call in the hospital tomorrow. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 04:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
**Sorry to have created extra work for obviously busy people, but I think it will lead to a much better article in the end. Incorporating the major results from the above would lead to a significantly better than average article. I have access to some good pediatrics textbooks, but I lack the background to understand a lot of the details very well. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
***No need to apologize, Taxman&mdash;we're not the only busy people here. Besides we share the common goal of wanting to improve Wikipedia. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 05:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

== CAUTION ==
Hi guys. Just wanted to urge caution when editing the article, now in FAC. Always check after you've edited that the footnote system hasn't been upset. Thanks.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 21:19:07, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

=== Refs ===
OK, here's the deal guys. I've spent some time going through the refs, the footnote guidleines on WP etc. I haven't been able to find a way to incorporate a footnote template that skips to the relevant reference but which does not include a number. What this means is that all our references need to be in the Vancouver style. I'm willing to work through this and clean it up, place templates at each relevant text area (eg. {{{ref|XYZ}}} ) and target reference (eg. {{{note|XYZ}}}, and then rearrange the refs below numerically using # to fit with the number in the text. I believe this is the best way to do it, because if we use the deplorable {{{fn|X}}} system, the moment anyone comes along and adds a ref or moves the text around, the entire reference system breaks down. The first way it's considerably more stable; the only thing I'll need to adjust when there are changes is the # sequence in the references section, because each "ref" will always be tagged to its "note" .

'''What I want''' is for everyone who placed references in the [[Asthma#References|references]] section to please paste here what statements in the article are based on a reference you placed at the bottom. Just write the relevant text sentence you want the citation to go to, and name the reference. I'll give an example:

:'''In the Treatment section''': "The U.S. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Expert Panel Report 2: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-2) (ref: National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. ''Expert Panel''...) and the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma (ref: SIGN document) are broadly supported by many doctors. Bronchodilators are recommended for providing short-term relief in all patients..."

Just place similar notes here as to which statements you wrote require citations to which refs, and I'll handle the rest. How's that sound?

:Wow, sounds great, Encephalon. I'll get you the references&mdash;it'll take me a couple days, though: I'm on call tomorrow. I'll try to get them Sunday, depending if I get any sleep on call. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 04:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
As always, kind regards—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 22:57:18, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

::Thanks, Seeker. No need to rush — get your sleep Sunday. Oh, and I don't mean to jinx it or anything, but it just ain't happening, dude. Sleeping on a call night as an intern in any normal hospital on a Saturday is simply a contravention of all known Laws of The Universe &copy;. You should write it up if it happens. :) —[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 22:10:28, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
:Encephalon - I want to get on top of this stuff soon too - I added several of those refs. I'm moving back to school this weekend and starting a job, so I'll be pretty busy too. I'll try to do what I can. Also, I guess I'll have to read up on [[Biochemistry]] to prepare. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
::Don't worry about it, Mr. Bip. You deserve a barnstar for the work you've already done. Just post your info on this talk page when you have time, as above. If there are still refs unaccounted for after Seeker posts here, I'll manually go through the edit histories and locate them. I'd have gone ahead and done it over the weekend, but since I didn't place many of the refs, I thought it courteous to ask the editors who did to say where they want them. Your point about Biochem is an important one, and something we may need to think about. Because of the Asthma FAC, I have not worked on RA; poor WS has been making improvements all by himself. I'm doing some clean up work today, but there is SO MUCH more that needs to be done on RA. We might have to rethink our timing: perhaps, MCOTW can be skipped during those weeks when there is an active push for FA status of one of our articles?—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 00:56:18, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Bah&mdash;I came home and slept all day, woke up to eat a late dinner and study for an hour, and now am going back to bed. It's not so much call that's tiring, it's the recovery period. I'll get to this tomorrow. Yeah, I'm worried we're getting spread too thin; this is something I'll bring up on MCOTW's talk page (or you can). I'll get you your references; it'd be such a laborious task for you to sift through the history. I plan to work on RA tomorrow too if I'm lucky (I'm just optimistic). &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 05:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

:In Treatment: "For those in which exercise can trigger an asthma attack, the episode usually occurs after the exertion, not during it. Higher levels of ventilation, colder air, and drier air all tend to make the episodes worse. For instance, activities in which one breathes large amounts of cold air, such as cross-country skiing, tend to be more worse for asthmatics, whereas swimming in an indoor, heated pool, with warm, humid air is less likely to provke a response." is from Harrison's. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 17:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
::Really? I find the first sentence hard to believe. I mean what about prolonged exercise? If the sentence were true, then for the most part asthmatics could delay symptoms simply by continuing to exercise. Myself as an example I get symptoms during prolonged exercise, even as short as 5-10min into it if I think about the last time I had symptoms. I think the author was implying short duration exercise, but never said. What do you think? The rest of that quote is golden though, and covers exactly what I had found and was thinking of adding. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:::I took it out, pending further confirmation. Feel free to reword the other sentences. I have a propensity to write long sentences, and the second sentence in particular ended up rather complex. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 05:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

:In Treatment: "These include an increased severity of symptoms, more rapid decline of lung function, and decreased response to preventitive medications. Asthmatics who smoke typically require additional medications to help control their disease. '''PMID 15643345'''. Furthermore, exposure to [[secondhand smoke]] is detrimental as well, resulting in more severe asthma, more [[emergency room]] visits, more hospital admissions related to asthma. '''PMID 12403881'''. Smoking cessation and avoidance of those who smoke is strongly encouraged in asthmatics." "...most studies show that early treatment with glucocorticoids prevents or ameliorates decline in lung function as measured by several parameters.'''PMID 12554904'''" following sentence is from Harrison's. Thanks Mr.Bip for finding all these journal articles. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 06:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

::Awesome. Thanks for this kind gesture, Seeker. I was beginning to sort through the refs on my own anyhoo, but this is helpful.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 11:21:31, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

== Basic science references ==

The very detailed paragraph about the bronchial immune response is very sparsely referenced. What was the main reference for this work? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 21:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:JFW - I mostly wrote that. My refs were (3) and (5) in the article, plus this article - Lilly CM, Diversity of asthma: Evolving concepts of pathophysiology and lessons from genetics. ''J Allergy Clin Immunol'' 2005, S526-31. PMID 15806035. Hope this helps. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 20:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

== Copy of original refs for article ==
* {{anb|PatientPlus}} Diagnosing Childhood Asthma in Primary Care, Patient UK [http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024499/ PatientPlus article written for doctors]
* {{anb|SIGN}} British guideline on the management of asthma - Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) [http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/63/index.html Online] [http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign63.pdf Full PDF] [http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/qrg63.pdf Summary PDF]
* {{anb|Alberts}} Alberts, W. Michael. "Irritant-Induced Asthma: Diagnosis And Management". Medscape General Medicine. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408732. Accessed on [[August 24]], [[2005]].
* {{anb|CDC}} Asthma Prevention Program of the National Center for Environmental Health Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Asthma At-A-Glance. 1999.
* {{anb|Finotto}} Finotto S, Glimcher L. T cell directives for transcriptional regulation in asthma. ''Springer Semin. Immunopathology'' 2004, 25(3-4):281-94. PMID 15007632.
* {{anb|Fraser}} Fraser Health: Asthma: Facts. http://www.fraserhealth.ca/HealthInfo/PublicHealth/Asthma/facts.htm. Accessed on [[August 24]], [[2005]].
* {{anb|Inwald}} Inwald D, Roland M, Kuitert L, et al. Oxygen treatment for acute severe asthma. ''[[British Medical Journal|BMJ]]'' 2001;323:98-100. PMID 11451788.
* {{anb|Jenkins}} Jenkins C, Costello J, Hodge L. Systematic review of prevalence of aspirin induced asthma and its implications for clinical practice. ''[[British Medical Journal|BMJ]]'' 2004;328:434. PMID 14976098.
* {{anb|Lilly}} Lilly CM, Diversity of asthma: Evolving concepts of pathophysiology and lessons from genetics. ''J Allergy Clin Immunol'' 2005, S526-31. PMID 15806035.
* {{anb|Maddox}} Maddox L, Schwartz DA. The Pathophysiology of Asthma. ''Annu. Rev. Med.'' 2002, 53:477-98. PMID 11818486.
* {{anb|Marketos}} Marketos SG, Ballas CN. Bronchial asthma in the medical literature of Greek antiquity. ''J Asthma''. 1982;19(4):263-9. PMID 6757243.
* {{anb|McFadden}} McFadden ER, Jr. Asthma. In Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Longo DL, et al (Eds.), ''Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine'' (16th Edition), pp. 1508-1516. New York: McGraw-Hill;2004.
* {{anb|Mujica}} Mujica VR, Rao SS. Recognizing atypical manifestations of GERD; asthma, chest pain, and otolaryngologic disorders may be due to reflux. ''Postgrad Med J'' 1999;105:53-55. PMID 9924493.
*{{anb|EPR2}} National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. ''Expert Panel Report: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma''. National Institutes of Health pub no 97-4051. Bethesda, MD, 1997.
* {{anb|WHO}} World Health Organization. Bronchial asthma: scope of the problem. [http://www.who.int/entity/respiratory/asthma/scope/en/index.html http://www.who.int/entity/respiratory/asthma/scope/en/index.html]. Accessed on [[23 Aug]] [[2005]].
* {{anb|Blanc}} Blanc PD, Trupin L, Earnest G, et al. Alternative therapies among adults with a reported diagnosis of asthma or rhinosinusitis: data from a population-based survey. ''Chest''. 2001;120(5):1461-7. PMID 11713120
* {{anb|Shenfield}} Shenfield G, Lim E, Allen H. Survey of the use of complementary medicines and therapies in children with asthma. ''J Paediatr Child Health''. 2002;38(3):252-7. PMID 12047692

==The view after a step back==
MCOTW community and others - I haven't been able to work much on WP the past week since my life has jumped up several notches in busy-ness, but this article has improved leaps and bounds in the past four weeks. Even if we don't get FA status for some reason, we have created a quality article on a tremendously important topic. Congrats! I hope we can continue the good work for months to come. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 20:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If this doesn't get FA, I'll eat an MDI.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 03:39:17, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
:Can I hold you to that? More importantly, can you take a picture of you eating it and put it as the top image of the article? [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 05:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

==Mortality statistic question==
In the "Prognosis" section, someone wrote "The mortality rate for asthma is quite low, around 0.06% per year in the United States." What is 0.06%? 0.06% of asthma sufferers? Of the United States population? Also, we should have a reference for statistic like that. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
:I was wondering the same thing. I think Seeker might know, I was just going to ask him on his Talk.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asthma&diff=21707068&oldid=21706711]—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 14:50:02, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
::Well, just going on the numbers, if that 0.06% referred to the entire population of the USA, that would mean that, assuming a population of 300m, a total of 180,000 people die in the US every year from asthma alone. Sounds a bit high to me, so I'll put my money on 0.06% of asthma sufferers per year. Some googling found [http://www.merckmedicus.com/pp/us/hcp/diseasemodules/asthma/epidemiology.jsp] which says "5500 asthmatics died across all age-groups in 1994" and that there were 17m asthma patients in the US in 1998. Granted, the years don't match but the calculated mortality from that is around 0.03% so 0.06% is not far off. [[User:Alex.tan|Alex.tan]] 16:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
:::Sure Alex, we can work such things out with a quick mental calculation etc. It's just that we can't stick that in the text of course - we need a cite.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 17:40:27, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
::::Sorry to have caused any confusion. There is no reference; I just made it up as it seemed like a reasonable estimate. Just kidding. It's from ''Harrison's''. The actual quote is "The mortality rate from asthma is small. The most recent figures for the United States indicate fewer than 6000 deaths per year out of a population of ~10 million patients at risk [that is, with asthma]." I thought the percentage was more meaningful than the raw number but change it if you think that'd be better. &mdash; [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|&#2470;]] 22:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::::*KS - In this situation, I think the raw numbers give a better idea of the low incidence than the percentage. [[User:Mr.Bip|Mr.Bip]] 05:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

==Alternative medicine rewrite==
Encephalon, although the alternative medicine section looks like you have put quite some work and time in it, it has become very hard to read I think. I would suggest not talking about all the individual reviews but just summarizing the conclusions. --[[User:Wouterstomp|WS]] 02:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, WS. Better?[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asthma&diff=22374918&oldid=22374171]—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000066>Encephalon</font>]] | [[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=red><sup>&zeta;</sup></font>]]&nbsp; 03:31:42, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:39, 14 November 2024

Former featured articleAsthma is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleAsthma has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
September 2, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 14, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
November 9, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
January 27, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

infobox image caption grammar

[edit]

The infobox pic has featured goofy grammar since Produde29499's june 27 edit (almost a month as of writing!). I'd fix this but I'm unregistered and the article is semi-protected. "This is an image of an asthmatics airways, it become swollen and full of mucous." 73.132.7.56 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephedrine

[edit]

Shouldn't ephedrine be mentioned? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

[edit]

From Environmental section, Change:

"Exposure to indoor volatile organic compounds may be a trigger for asthma; formaldehyde exposure, for example, has a positive association.[50] Phthalates in certain types of PVC are associated with asthma in both children and adults.[51][52] While exposure to pesticides is linked to the development of asthma, a cause and effect relationship has yet to be established.[53][54] A meta-analysis concluded gas stoves are a major risk factor for asthma, finding around one in eight cases in the U.S. could be attributed to these.[55]"

by adding this at the end:

"Indoor houseplants improve air quality by reducing levels of formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide."[1][2] Surftacular (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Indoor houseplants do not substantially affect indoor air quality. https://www.lung.org/blog/houseplants-dont-clean-air Jaredroach (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjshs1/78/4/78_4_456/_article/-char/ja/
  2. ^ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4258716/#b23-eht-29-e2014014
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asthma&oldid=1257297115"