Talk:Erythromelalgia

Anyone have images?
So I've just rewritten this page and it seems much better now. However it'd really benefit from some images of patients during an attack. If someone has access to such images please upload them and add them to the page. Alternatively, contact me via email from my userpage and I'll assist with uploading/editing. --Dpryan 08:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved incidence here
It contradicts the incidence at the epidemiological studies with more and newer studies. Maybe part of the epidemiological part can come back to incidence if someone has the time for it. EllenvanderVeen (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Incidence
Recent research in the U.S. found the incidence of EM (the number of people a year diagnosed with EM) to be 1.3 per 100,000. The rate for women was higher — 2.0 per 100,000 per year — than men, which was just 0.6. The median age at diagnosis was 61. These rates were five times higher than those estimated by an earlier Norwegian study — the only other known research describing EM incidence. Approximately five percent of those with EM have the autosomal dominant (Primary-Inherited) form of the disease.

Visual map for epidemiological studies
Use this link to make a map in the future that has the epidemiological studies included



EllenvanderVeen (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

History
Great link for finding more info on the history of EM and update it on wikipedia

http://search.wellcomelibrary.org/iii/encore/search?formids=target&lang=eng&suite=def&reservedids=lang%2Csuite&submitmode=&submitname=&target=erythromelalgia&submit=Search

EllenvanderVeen (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The healthy right arm in the first image is confusing - whose arm is it?
The first image file is actually 5 separate photographs in one JPEG file. Here is the JPEG file of the whole thing:



See the top panel with two arms? The top arm is a left arm having an attack of erythromelalgia. The bottom arm is a right arm, which is weird, because it would be very hard for both arms to be attached to the same human in that posture on the pillow. I dare say it would be impossible. The arms would need to be behind the back.

That said, the healthy right arm (bottom of the image, in the top panel) looks a lot like it could belong to the same human - especially with a time machine made available. I feel like it may be the arm of the patient's daughter, and they have also done their nails the same way to make it extra confusing.

It's just really confusing, because that JPEG file contains two other images comparing the left and right hands of clearly the same woman, and indeed, her left arm is in much worse shape. But on that top panel, that's not her right arm. It's not free of swelling and also 40 years younger. I spent a solid 2 minutes before convincing myself that image really definitely doesn't show two arms from the same human. Fluoborate (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)