Talk:Rheumatism

"diagnosis"

This section is not needed. As per the article intro, "rheumatism does not designate any specific disorder, but covers at least 200 different conditions". Rheumatism is not a disease per se, and as such, a diagnosis section does not apply. Suggest deleting. Cotedesneiges (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

glucosamine

My friend said to take glucosamine and aspirin for my rheumatism. I have started it today. --Mihai cartoaje 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Treatment

I have altered the first-line NSAID treatment to naproxen from diclofenac, in recognition of prescribing habits after diclofenac was found to cause stroke much more often than either ibuprofen or naproxen. David100351 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As with many sicknesses there seems to be a connection between rheumatism and nutrition. Whoever eats a lot of pork or other cuts of wild pig suffers sooner from rheumatism than vegetarians. Unfortunately I can't verify this by any scientific study. But my friend who is a hunter covers his protein needs through the consumption of his quarry. He himself is not afflicted that I know of but his wife is and to a very high degree. Other acquaintences with rheumatism consume meat over proportionately. I'm passing this information on for anyone suffering from rheumatism and is not getting cured through normal medical treatment. A change of diet costs nothing and could well relieve pain. Don't expect relief within a few days. It could well take sdeveral weeks. AdrianAbel (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

pressure

There might be a mistake regarding the atmospheric pressure statement. The article discusses how gases are more dense as they cool. This is true. However, this is NOT the same thing as pressure. A gas's expansion due to heat increases pressure but decreases density. The reason for this is easily explained by the following example: Take a cubic meter of Mystery Gas A. Let's say it has a pressure of 100 Fictitious Pressure Units at a temperature of 50 Fictitious Temperature Units. If you increase the temperature of our cubic meter of Mystery Gas A to 500 Fictitious Temperature Units, the gas's molecules will want to expand to occupy a greater volume. It will try to occupy a volume greater than one cubic meter. If there isn't any resistance, it will do so and retain a near-constant pressure. However, the atmosphere is not a resistance-free environment. It can't expand ever-upward without resistance. It can't expand laterally without resistance, either. Because the volume the gas has isn't infinite and without resistance, the increased temperature will cause an increase in atmospheric pressure even though the density of the gas has decreased. Perhaps a more clear example of why this happens is when the volume is even more resistive--perhaps a metal gas cylinder. If you take a canister of CO2 that is full and sit it over a heat source, the pressure will increase inside of the cylinder. It will eventually rupture if the pressure becomes high enough. On the other hand, you can chill the cylinder and the pressure will go down until the gas eventually either liquefies or solidifies (or the cylinder's particular metal alloy becomes too brittle to hold what pressure remains). You can see this effect in paintball equipment, for example, as the markers will not shoot as well after many rapid shots. The pressure in the CO2 tank decreases and so does the temperature.

Article Assessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page for verification. Upon reviewed of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below:

• Assess article with class and importance factors

I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rheumatism is not a recognized medical term. This article half says that, but then the other half acts like it is a real category. The legitimate medical information needs to be removed and placed elsewhere and this article can talk about the concept as an old colloquial term. Or better yet, the page should be retired. Nuclearzenfire (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Rheumatism

wait, wait, wait now. As to deleting this article..it is helpful for the fact that if you are going back into history, rheumatism is commonly cited as is dropsy. I have letters from the early 1900's where some of my family talks of rheumatism being in the family at that time. If this article was deleted or other articles of such diseases not recognized today were, then my research of what they were going through or what they were talking about would be very, very hard to understand. Because it is not a recognized disease as such now, does not mean it never existed in Doctor's and people's minds. Because of this article, I see now that the rheumatism they were talking about could have been any variety of things. My ancestor was stricken hard by 'rheumatism' where as the neighbor also had 'rheumatism' and was in much better shape. Also, his daughter died in her early twenties and talks of having neck pain that she doesn't know of how it came about in the first place. How was it treated? Morphine was prescribed for practically everything back then which led to many addictions. To find that out is very difficult also. Probably that information has been deleted just the same as Wikipedia Medical Police want Rheumatism deleted. Let's tell the truth and quit changing history, please.

Error(?) regarding "epidemiology" vs "etiology"

The article currently includes, after a list of diverse conditions:
these disorders probably have little in common in terms of their epidemiology

I suspect the intent is:
these disorders probably have little in common, in terms of their etiology.

I'm not part of the Medical Wikipedia team, nor certain enough to make this change myself. But "etiology" does seem correct. And "their epidemiology" doesn't makes sense to me. Certainly not in-context.

(Please let me know whether this is the appropriate manner and place to raise this sort of correction or question. Thanks! Netpog (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))