Talk:Embolus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 November 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afmcraig. Peer reviewers: Quokkarobocop.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relative Frequency of Embolisms
Hello fellow editors. I included today a column in the Classification table describing very roughly the relative occurrence of various types of emboli seen in the clinical setting. The table links these to the embolisms which is the clinically relevant thing here. On the one hand, this cries out for a citation and there isn't one. I was unable to find any studies on the relative incidence of all embolisms weighed against one another; nor is there really any reason why such a study would be performed in the first place. Instead, statistics are readily available on the % incidence of a certain embolism type in a given scenario: e.g., air embolism after TEE. So a source seems needed but hard to come by. On the other hand, it seemed important in this article to emphasize that not all emboli are seen with equal frequency, and because uncited references are already made in the text of this page to some of these embolism syndromes being "rare", I thought it best to add this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afmcraig (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review - December 2020
I really like the changes you've made to the article. These include: -replacing list with a table for different types of emboli -adding sections for nomenclature and clinical significance, with clear language in both. -clarifying language in lead section

Considerations for future work: -adding more structure to the clinical significance section -consider trying to shorten sentences and simplify language. I think this is lower priority because this is an article likely to be primarily geared towards pre-health and health trainees. -fleshing out the history section! I would love to see what you've prepared there! -could add dead links to foreign body and tissue embolism to highlight the lack of article for either. Quokkarobocop (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review Thanks to Quokkarobocop for the thoughtful suggestions and helping to improve this article! Agreed that it is uncertain whether this is more a health trainee or patient-facing article. Hopefully the language we've adopted is sufficiently accessible to both audiences. Added dead links as you suggested, and also fleshed out the history section. Here, chose to opt for brevity since the history and controversy is well covered in other wiki articles, and in keeping with other aspects of the article, tried to keep it as focused on just the idea of embolus as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afmcraig (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Planned Edits - December 2020
Update I've finished my edits on this page as our course completed in late Dec 2020. One thing that might be of interest to future editors is to revisit the history section. In particular, it would be useful to add a few sentences describing the history after Virchow; for example, how different types of emboli other than thromboemboli were first discovered, keeping in mind what is already on the wiki pages for those concepts. Additionally, any changes to the 'relative frequency' table column would be welcomed, as mentioned above. Thank you!

Hello! I am a 4th-year medical student at UCSF. I will be updating this topic as part of a course on WikiProject Medicine, by which this article is rated Start-class, High-importance.

I am here outlining my planned edits for feedback/discussion from other editors. I would love to hear any of your thoughts and discuss how we can best improve this page together!

Afmcraig (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Afmcraig (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afmcraig (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and a general overview of how our understanding of embolus composition has changed over time.
 * and a general overview of how our understanding of embolus composition has changed over time.
 * and a general overview of how our understanding of embolus composition has changed over time.
 * and a general overview of how our understanding of embolus composition has changed over time.
 * and a general overview of how our understanding of embolus composition has changed over time.

Aren't these contradictory sentences?
I'm not a doctor or medical student but I can understand complicated things if they are spelled out without contradictions. This seems to me to be a contradiction (or problem) in the article: "In thromboembolism, the thrombus (blood clot) from a blood vessel is completely or partially detached from the site of thrombosis (clot)."

When I'm reading something like this, I assume the text in parenthesis is meant to explain (or give another word for) the word before it. Therefore, if you take out the parentheses: "the blood clot from a blood vessel is ... detached from the site of the clot." The blood clot is detached from the clot? This doesn't make sense to me. (Maybe it's just me!)

But this seems to be a plain contradiction: "The free-moving thrombus is called an embolus. A thrombus is ALWAYS attached to the vessel wall and is NEVER freely moving in the blood circulation."

The first sentence seem to describe a free-moving 'type' of thrombus but then the next sentence says a thrombus is NEVER free-moving. It seems to me the second sentence should be FIRST, followed by, "If the thrombus detaches and becomes free-moving it is now called an embolus." But maybe I don't understand.

I don't mean to criticize anyone, just want to let you know where this might not make sense to an average reader. Thank you for considering! Very helpful article otherwise! 184.166.76.24 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)