Talk:Bronchiolitis obliterans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Removed oxides of nitrogen

Removed sentence "Unlike water-soluble irritant gases which dissolve on the mucus membranes of the upper airway, oxides of nitrogen hydrolyze slowly into acids after penetrating to deep lung tissue." Sentence was clearly out of context in the Prognosis and Treatment section and does not appear to have any relevance to this article, at all. (can nitrous oxide also cause Bronchiolitis Obliterans? should be mentioned elsewhere if so). 129.79.145.94 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Written by a plaintiff attorney?

Was the article written by a plaintiff attorney, popcorn workers lung may be a type of BO, but the article seems to over stress con agra, popcorn and toxic industrial fumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.177.67 (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this page being vandalized?

I just came here because B.O. was in the news and i wanted to read up on it. I found a stub, added some data about diacetyl and moved on -- only to go back to google and read the cached snippet they had there, which was entirly different than what i found online tonight. So i looked up the history and it is a FAR BETTER ARTICLE than what is here now.

Meanwhile, this discussion age has some stuff about Popcorn Workers Lung deserving its own page, but that phrase redirects to the B.O. page.

This looks like a hot button issue, but i am going to restore the older version as it is far more educational than what is online tonight. I will add an update on the Con Agra decision to drop diacetyl.

cat Catherineyronwode 12:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not scientific, popcorn people take it to a new article

Clearly you are not a physician. BO is NOT just a manifestation of diacetyl---it is only ONE cause and is VERY rare compared to the rest of the BO etiologies. However the article, as you prefer it, implies BO is some new disease that is only seen in diacetyl exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.177.67 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals!

This site keeps being by vandals, who are clearly lay people. Folks are trying to inject as many random facts about diacetyl as they possibly can, which is clearly not the medical perspective of BO. Diacetyl exposure is simply one (relatively minor) cause of BO. You are free to move your comments to a page on popcorn workers lung.--66.168.239.130 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise

I think I have forged a compromise here that should meet everyone's concerns. The emphasis on popcorn lung has been lessened considerably and there is now more emphasis on the fact that the disease is rarely caused by diacetyl. This is, however,still a short paragraph stating that diacetyl can and indeed does cause this illness. I think what I have written is reasonable and I hope you will agree. I hope we can stop the "No you're the vandal!" battles now. Regards, Chrissy385 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ok good plan.
--24.214.167.195 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have used your outline format, Chrissy, but have resinstated a great deal of material that was deleted by the IP block anonymous editors. My reasons are:
  • Among the deleted portions was a list of other industries and chemicals connected to B. O. I have reinstated that.
  • Among the deleted portions were news agency reports with good cites stating clearly that because B. O. had turned up in a consumer case, at least two large manufacturers of microwave popcorn were reducing or eliminating the use of diacetyl. Important news like this, when well cited -- as this was -- should never be deleted from a Wikipedia article. I restored it.
Pushy commands by the IP block users telling people to take it to a popcorn workers lung page are meaningless because there is no page on popcorn workers lung -- the phrase already redirects here -- so like it or not, since popcorn worker's lung is just a lay term popularized by the media and redirects here, this IS the page.
I have alerted one admin to the problems ongoing at this page and asked for a review with an eye to semi-protection.
cat Catherineyronwode 07:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I already gave a list of chemicals causing BO in the etiology section. Second Flock workers lung is more of a DIP/IPF or BOOP picture than BO and should be removed (Chest. 2000 Jan;117(1):10-3.) Third polyamide-amine paint (Ardystil syndrome) causes BOOP (Eur. Respir. J., August 1, 2006; 28(2): 422 - 446.) Kindly cite references (preferably peer-reviewed journal articles), or I will remove these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.177.67 (talk • contribs) 08:17, September 8, 2007

[edit] Major deletions by anonymous IP Block users -- what's up?

What's with the people from unsigned IP blocks, especially 209, and their program of continuing deletions? This is weird.

The Con Agra decision to drop diacetyl from microwave popcorn, due to its link to BO in at least one consumer case and an unknown number of popcorn worker cases -- which was in the news yesterday and on this page yesterday might -- is now gone again! We had a clear response from industry, making a decision to eliminate the offending inhalant. Now it is gone. I restored it again, for the second time in two day.

Is the person vandalizing this page working for a lawyer or public relations firm connected with the popcorn industry? I know it sounds strange, but it a reasonable question, because this sort of vandalizm of Wikipedia by interestd parties is not new.

User IP Block 209 has been warned about vandalism more than once on this page and more than once on his or her own user talk page.

catherine Catherineyronwode 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs organized; query on NIOSH 1986; Lockey et al. 2002; inhalants section

I have organized the 13 cited references and gave them consistent style tags. In doing so, i noted two "orphaned" refs -- refs which were not given as full citations. They were presented within the text as

  • [NIOSH 1986; Lockey et al. 2002].

but due to lack of title, author, etc., they could not be listed in the actual ref section.

If you know what they are or their full citation form, please add them to the appropriate text section in a form that will enable them to be seen as numbered refs in the ref list. If you do not know how to do the tagging / coding for that, please list them here and i will do so.

Also, to anon IP block user 209: Your deletion of the Industrial inhalants section was not done "per discussion" as you claimed when deleting. Let's talk about it. You say:

Flock workers lung is more of a DIP/IPF or BOOP picture than BO and should be removed (Chest. 2000 Jan;117(1):10-3.) [and] polyamide-amine paint (Ardystil syndrome) causes BOOP (Eur. Respir. J., August 1, 2006; 28(2): 422 - 446.)

Now, that may well be true, but why delete the entire section and the iinformation that battery workers' exposure to thionyl chloride fumes can cause BO? Yes, thionyl chloride is listed in the etiology section, but THIS is a section about "Industrial inhalants" which is a different topic. Shortening the article is not a good idea. Removing information is not a good idea. If you want the nylon flock workers and the polyamide-amine paint wrokers out, that's okay, but don't delete the entire section.

Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you--the sections says "Sporadic cases of Bronchiolitis obliterans linked to industrial inhalants have been reported in the published scientific literature in several industries" I think YOU need to cite the appropriate literature, or get rid of it. Actually, you should move the whole thing to a more appropriate article on occupational lung disease; which is usually how it is handled in medical texts. In fact, the occupational lung disease article is pretty pathetic and I would be happy to see you expand it and you are welcome to link it to this page. --209.149.177.67 23:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Found it and cited it. The cite is to the National Institutes of Health page on BO, listing industry-linked cases, so BO among nylon flock workers is now fully cited, with quotes from the NIH. Enjoy~ catCatherineyronwode 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a crummy reference--it cites a textbook---but we don't know what the textbook actually says. So I went to the literature:

Six of the seven patients who underwent biopsy had findings (Figure 2 B, Figure 3 B, Figure 5 B and Figure 5 C) of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, as the term has been used either in HIV-infected patients [20, 21] or for the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias [3]. The seventh patient who underwent biopsy (patient 8) had findings indicating bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (Figure 4 B). All seven patients had nodular, peribronchovascular interstitial lymphoid infiltrates, generally of moderate intensity, and five had germinal centers. Six had lymphocytic bronchiolitis, five had lymphocytic infiltration of alveolar septa, and five had interstitial fibrosis

Ann Int Med 129:4;261-72

But I'm sick of fighting, so Im editing the section, to hopefully make everyone happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.167.195 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible typo - otherwise needs clarification

"Standard lung capacity is normally around 80% lung usage"

...erm dont you mean lung usage is 80% capacity?

I also wondered about that -- but that's the way it was when i found it, and i didn't want to mess with it. Thanks for showing up, AnonEMouse -- it looks like this one is settling down. i found it an intersting topic. i'm off now to write about the Zancigs (stage magicians) or maybe to work on my own web site. seeya! cat Catherineyronwode 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)