Talk:Ehrlichiosis (canine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine.

This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

Needs more references, an image or two, and more on treatment and epidemiology. --Joelmills 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be material about Ehrlichiosis in humans in this article.

Contents

[edit] Merge from Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic

Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic has recently been created, but is wrongly capitalised, poorly phrased title and discussion of low platelets/purpura as it occurs in this condition should be in Ehrlichiosis article not a separate comparison article.

  • Firstly this is wrongly titled as generally only the first word should be capitalised, hence Ehrlichiosis induced TTP mimic, secondly poor phrasing vs perhaps Ehrlichiosis mimicry of TTP - but that still leaves a title having an abbreviation.
  • The information in that article should be under the condition, ie within Ehrlichiosis. We do not have costochriditis mistaken for myocardial infarction, yet plenty of patients do present to their GP or A&E terrified they might be having a heart problem with the severe pain being experienced. We generally have just single article for each problem rather than disease comparisions. Likewise MIs and costochondritis are on a list of differentials for chest pain that may also include pleurisy and pneumothorax, and we don't have Pleurisy mimic of MI, Pneumothorax mimicry of pleurisy and all the other combinations of comparisons. David Ruben Talk 02:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge from Ehrlickiosis

Copied from Talk Ehrlickiosis (as mergeto tag now points here, complementing this article's existing mergefrom tag): David Ruben Talk 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This material should be moved to Ehrlichiosis -(unsigned entry by Caroldermoid at 14:00, 20 November 2006)
  • I tentatively agree. However, the page you reference is primarily about the infection of animals, most specifically dogs. This article is specific to the recent discovery of human infection. If the articles are merged, human infection must have its own section.
  • Alternately, this page could be renamed to reflect the correct spelling and changed to Ehrlichiosis (human). The other article could be changed to Ehrlichiosis (canine) or something similar. Also, a disambiguation page could be setup and referenced by both articles. This is somewhat similar to Parvovirus and Parvovirus B19 (although those virii are different species). I think it may be worthwhile to keep these two articles separate if only due to the fact that the discovery of occurance in humans is relatively recent while animal infection is not (1935). Arx Fortis 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - two versions of an article, one mis-spelt, should not be kept just because of animal / human differences. Most disorders should apply to the more important senario - us humans - with animals being discussed separately as appropriate. We do not have Myocardial infarction (human) and Myocardial infarction (animal) (in part as humans are animals in that by and large disease processes are similar). So for this instance Merge, and as human relevance is the "new" and developing field then in intro explain establishd animal role vs developing role in humans, discuss mostly in animals and then a separate section for humans. David Ruben Talk 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The main thrust of this article should reflect the human situation, not dogs (yes I guess this could be considered a form of "human-ism". Andrew73 22:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not merge I agree with Arx Fortis. Rename Ehrlichiosis to Canine ehrlichiosis, rename Ehrlickiosis to Human ehrlichiosis, and then merge that with Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis. The current ehrlichiosis article is a pretty decent description of canine disease, so it should be kept as such. I'm sure that there is enough info on the human form of the disease to warrant its own article. --Joelmills 04:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
UpToDate has its ehrlichiosis article under "human ehrlichiosis" so I agree with above. However, ehrlichiosis should redirect to the human condition, not the canine entity. Andrew73 16:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. "Ehrlickiosis" is a misspelling. It has only 58 hits on Google. "Ehrlickiosis" should redirect to "Ehrlichiosis". By all means, include a separate section for animal disease. Axl 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic

Please merge any relevant content from Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:40Z

[edit] Moved page to ehrlichiosis (canine)

I've renamed this to "ehrlichiosis (canine)" since the content of the article refers mainly to the canine variety. Alas, the article on the human condition could stand some beefing up, in comparison to the dog one. Andrew73 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So is Human granulocytic anaplasmosis now considered to be the human ehrlichiosis article? If it is, we should have a dab statement at the top of this article. --Joelmills 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would consider HGA to be a subset of human ehrlichiosis. Perhaps there should be a separate article, ehrlichiosis (human), given that the dog variety was described first. To make matters more complicated, there's also human monocytic ehrlichiosis, which is clinically similar to HGA, but caused by a different organism. Andrew73 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very lame/confusing that there is now no WP article about ehrlichiosis in humans!-69.87.201.159 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not like we took an article on human ehrlichiosis and turned it into one on dogs; there's never been a decent human one. The closest one is Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, but I don't know if that is the only type of human ehrlichiosis. There should be a dab statement at the top of the article, though, which I'll take care of now. --Joelmills 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess there is also human monocytic ehrlichiosis, but there is no article on that. --Joelmills 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humans

Please use these resources to add info to the articles! -69.87.201.159 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As I just stated above, the article on human ehrlichiosis is at Human granulocytic ehrlichiosis, so you can actually add those things there yourself. However, as I also stated above, there is no article on human monocytic ehrlichiosis. --Joelmills 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)