Talk:Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do[edit]

Do think, the redict from "Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin" to "Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration" is right? I think it's not the same, isn't it? 137.248.254.132 08:51, 6 June 2006

I agree that MCH should not be redirected to MCHC, as the two are distinct -although related- concepts. It might also be helpful to mention in each article that "MCH is not to be confused with MCHC" and vice versa. --Jay Litman 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thinking analysers?[edit]

it says that This makes the machine think there are a low number of very dense red blood cells. - I don't think machines can 'think'! it would be more apporpriate to write This makes machines to mis-analyse that there are a.... instead 202.37.167.175 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, analysers don't 'think.' I am going to reword this sentance to make it sound a little more technical. Also, there is currently no reference for the effect of cold agglutin on MCHC analysis. --Jay Litman 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that there isn't a reference for cold agglutin that describes its relationship to MCHC analysis. I can't seem to find a decent one on the internet, but I will keep looking --Jay Litman 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Wikipedia medical articles so layman unfriendly?[edit]

I came here, probably like 99% of people who come here, after getting a blood test result where the MCHC level was outside the norm. Instead of seeing an article explaining what I need to know, I get medical lingo aimed at the graduate level. I've seen this time and time again on the Wikipedia with medical articles. Please think of the readers, people! --93.41.170.202 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124071322/http://www.fpnotebook.com/HEM81.htm to http://www.fpnotebook.com/HEM81.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]