Talk:Paper cut

Surprisingly Acute?

- It refers to the pain, not the damage done.

The word 'acute' refers to time scale, not painfulness. Paper cuts can often take a few seconds or minutes to start hurting, so they are not surprisingly acute at all. If anything they are surprisingly delayed.78.109.178.67 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The bit about a liquid bandage seems a bit out of place (a bit of advertising maybe?) Normal management of a paper cut is conservative, ie just leave it and it will heal on its own.78.109.178.67 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

Somebody crop that image. It should only show the finger with the cut, not that next frame with the bacon strip bandage whatnot. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

done --WakiMiko (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is near-orphaned

I think that a few more links to this page are in order (all the current ones are mislabeled links to the Linken Park song, or links from a meta-page).

healing time of paper cuts

A recent one felt like it healed in a mere hour or two. Does this seem accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelazyleo (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the time depends, but there's no reliable source to confirm this.--68.34.228.147 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Start Class

This article kind of looks like a start class article. Anyone with me? 70.171.224.249 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed 82.28.45.206 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I will rate is 'Stub' as there is no reliable sources or other details! Komchi^✉_☆ 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, there's almost no research on this ubiquitous injury. One periodical is interesting, certainly not a medical source to any degree. I found that the National Necrotizing Fasciitis Foundation does refer to paper cuts as a potential portal of entry. I included as they arguably are an authority but please revert if you think this is way too weak. Chickpecking (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I just don't understand the current last sentence: "The same principle can be applied to performers that stand on blades." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.110 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the context "The random orientation of collagen fibers in skin provides the ability to withstand pinpoint forces. However, skin does not have the same strength against shearing forces and is easily cut." -- 70.58.92.168 (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This sentence seems a bit irrelevant. This is an article about paper cut, not acrobatic performers. I suggest that this sentence be deleted.--68.34.228.147 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

References to case reports

I reverted recent revision as case reports are permissible to use in exceptional circumstances, and these were used to show some medical relevance more than to establish a causal link i.e. people with paper cuts have a 30% increased risk in getting cellulitis. For now we should leave them in unless there is good reason to remove them. Chickpecking (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary research is unreliable, and in any case would be undue without secondary coverage to establish due weight. If no other publication is mentioning this why should Wikipedia? We must write at the tertiary, not the secondary level. Alexbrn (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)