Talk:Fifth disease

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marltaly9990. Peer reviewers: Wiesebc3532.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Epidemic - location?
"A significant increase in the number of cases is seen every three to four years; the last epidemic year was 1998." Where wwas this? Rich Farmbrough 15:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had this around that time, I live in Missouri, near St. Louis, and the doctors told me this was going around the area at the time, though this is only 1 location...

I have the fifth disease right now and it is really annoying, just like me :D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.225.52 (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed this sentence. Rich  Farmbrough 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Etymology
when diseases causing childhood rashes were enumerated - Enumerated by whom? When? Bovlb 05:05, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)


 * Hmmm "[From its being fifth in frequency of rash-producing childhood diseases.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition" Rich  Farmbrough 13:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Note this

1. measles, rubeola, 14-day measles 2. scarlet fever, scarlatina 3. rubella, German measles, 3-day measles 4. Duke's disease (caused by various viruses including coxsackievirus, enterovirus, or echovirus) 5. Fifth disease (erythema infectiosum, slapped cheek syndrome), caused by Parvovirus B19 6. Sixth disease (exanthem subitum, roseola infantum, rose rash of infants, baby measles)

was removed from the article when the template came in,

"By the time adulthood is reached, about half the population will have become immune following infection at some time in their past." was removed. The source cites a study completed in the UK where blood titers were drawn. No recent articles has mentioned this finding (2021).

Name
Perhaps Slap Cheek is the most common name? 13:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC) If so move it there. Rich  Farmbrough 13:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Transmission
This section seems to have factual errors. The referenced articles contradict some of the statements here.

"Individuals with fifth disease are most infectious before the onset of symptoms."

Is contradicted by, "The first stage, occurring after an incubation period of four to 14 days, consists of a mild prodromal illness characterized by low-grade fever, headache and gastrointestinal symptoms. This stage, which often is unrecognized, corresponds with the period of viremia and the period of contagion." (from Sabella C, Goldfarb J (October 1999). "Parvovirus B19 infections". Am Fam Physician. 60 (5): 1455–60. PMID 10524489. Retrieved 2009-11-06.)

Additionally, this statement is misleading, "When symptoms are evident, there is little risk of transmission; therefore, symptomatic individuals don't need to be isolated."

Symptoms of Fifth include fever, headache and gastrointestinal symptoms, and when those are present individuals are contagious. Perhaps the statement should specify symptoms unique to Fifth (red cheeks). That would a true statement.


 * We have a good write-up of fifth disease at Parvovirus B19 - better than here, in fact. I was about to add a "main article" cross-reference there when I realised a reference from here to there would probably be more helpful to the reader!  – -SquisherDa (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II Fifth Disease Plan
Plan:

- Expand on background

- Add references to treatment --> standard of care? developments in vaccines?

- Go over specific demographics impacted by fifth disease

- Add photos if there is time

- Add causes and prevention, complication, diagnosis

Peer Review
Improved article as described in "Guiding framework"

I felt that the added subheadings, such as: vulnerable populations, causes, etc. provided relevant and pertinent structure to the article. I felt that since many people often turn to Wikipedia for medical information these additions would allow them to gain a big picture understanding of the disease. In particular, "Vulnerable Populations" provided reviews and meta-analysis in a chronological manner which allows for people to see the evolution of the disease from various stand points. As for some slight stylistic changes that could be made, would to be consistent with the capitalization of subheadings, for example "Mechanism of Parovirus" vs. "Mechanism of parovirus" (how it is right now). Sdo0001 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The article covers most aspects of the fifth disease and compiles important information for a reader to find in one place. The content added is relevant to the topic and easy to read. Some changes I would suggest is ordering of headings to be in a more chronological order. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles can be used as a reference to see how headings in an article are usually lined up. For example, the "History" section would have been better if placed together with 'Introduction" rather than in the end. Another change that can be made is clearing up the structure of the article so that repetitive information is not placed in different sections of the article. For example, the information about "special populations" who are affected with this disease could have been put under epidemiology with two sub-headings- Special populations and Vulnerable populations. Overall, the article shows balanced coverage and neutral point of view. [-SukhKaur2023 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)]

The Lead section could be expanded upon, including some key statistics that describe the severity or prevalence of the disease. I think of the Lead as the first section people skim to get a high-level overview of the topic and decide whether reading the rest of the article is relevant to continue reading at the moment. The contents of the articles are well organized, and I think it can be improved by re-ordering of the sections. One recommendation would be: Causes -> Mechanism -> Transmission -> Signs & Symptoms -> Complications -> Diagnosis -> Treatment -> Epidemiology -> Vulnerable Populations -> History. Using this recommendation, the information in later sections can build off of earlier sections, and also easier to det4ect repetitive information. Appreciate that the editors have updated the article with meta-analysis and lit review articles from 2020 and 2021. LChing (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the group added a lot more information related to the diagnosis, treatment, mechanism, vulnerable populations, and complications of fifth disease. This improves the depth of information available for fifth disease. They have also added many studies and reviews to reference their information to ensure credibility. There is a lot of technical and medical jargon throughout the edits, which may be difficult for a non-science person to understand. I will comment on this in a later prompt. Potential sections to the article that can add more depth include: Prevention, Prognosis, History, and Research Directions. S. Choy, PharmD (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Achieved overall goals

These edits achieved 3 out of the 4 sub-header goals that the Foundations II group proposed initially. The background section has also been expanded on thoroughly particularly through the "History", "Causes", and "Epidemiology" section. The group successfully made some stylistic changes and expanded on these changes with information from appropriate sources. The treatment section also specifies particular methods of symptom relief and while the group wanted to add "standard of care" in their goals, the treatment section notes that there is no specific therapy recommended. What about the most effective? Did a particular review mention why there is none recommended? Is this the group's own opinion based off of their reserach into Fifth Disease? Sdo0001 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The group added a lot of background information which was their first goal. The article contains information that is relevant and backed by references. The treatment sections and standard of care also has added references to support the new information. The group spent time on adding information about epidemiology, special and vulnerable populations which fulfills their third role. Although the group only added one picture in the article, it could be due to the lack of open access pictures in mass commons or lack of time as established by the group in their plan. The causes, complications and diagnosis sections are added as planned by the group except for the "prevention" section.[- SukhKaur2023 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)]

Looking at the overall goals from the Foundations II group, most of the goals were achieved in high-impact ways. Treatment and diagnosis guidelines as well as literature review from 2020 and 2021 were added recently. In addition, important sections such as causes, complications, and even a section on vulnerable populations were expanded upon concisely. A goal of adding a prevention section was mentioned but I don't see it yet. Is there a reason why (e.g. the article mentions that there is no approved vaccine yet)? What about non-vaccine methods of transmission, such as hygiene-based or community-based efforts? LChing (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The group addressed their first goal in expanding on the background about fifth disease. They added various sections to add more depth to the topic. They have also added plenty of references to the article. Specifically, they were able to address their research goals in looking for standards of care and any available vaccines for the disease. They addressed their third goal by going over a specific demographic that is impacted by the disease. They added the "vulnerable populations" section to address this. They didn't add photos to the article, but they mentioned they would only do this if time permitted. Lastly, they addressed their last goal by adding a "causes", "complications" and "diagnosis" section. S. Choy, PharmD (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

For the most part, the language and content used seems neutral, without representing or underpresenting any "side" or argument. Most sentences are observational in nature, without judgement. One sentence that may fall out of the observational scope is "When symptoms are evident, the risk of transmission is small; therefore, symptomatic individuals do not need to be isolated." Currently, this sounds like a claim or therapeutic recommendation that is unsubstantiated, though the reason is given. How small is small? Who/what organization has published this recommendation? Is it functionally universally accepted in medical practice? A recommendation to edit this sentence to sound more neutral is either "It is recommended by XYZ that symptomatic individuals do not need to be isolated" or something that is more observational rather than medical advice. LChing (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Citations [-SukhKaur2023 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)]
 * 1)  Reference 4 has a 'Summary" of the article linked to it instead of the whole article.
 * 2)  References 3 & 5 need access to NCBI for full-text access.
 * 3)  References 21,23,31,32 & 35 have only the "Abstract" portion of the article linked.
 * 4)  Reference 34 is a news article that shows the point of view of a doctor.

Consistent with Manual of Style The information presented in this article is informative and dense. Based on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, one of the "pitfalls" for medical writing is writing for the wrong audience. Wikipedia is meant to be written for a non-science reader. We must assume that readers don't have much science background when reading medical articles on Wikipedia. Some medical jargon that caught my attention include the following:

—anti-parvovirus B19 IgM under the "Diagnosis" section is a technical term that could potentially be expanded upon by inserting a hyperlink on antibodies or antibody assays; or can be introduced more thoroughly in the paragraph

—PCR and DNA hybridization in the "Diagnosis" section can also be expanded upon by inserting a hyperlink or a small definition.

—Vertical transmission under the "Transmission" section can be simplified by writing a "layman's" definition.

—Hydrops fetalis under the "Transmission" section can be expanded upon by inserting a hyperlink or explaining what it is.

Another comment about writing style is being consistent when using erythema infectiosum or fifth disease throughout the article. I understand that both terms are used to describe the disease, but for the sake of readability, I recommend choosing one or other other throughout the sections of the article. S. Choy, PharmD (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Language supports diversity, equity, and inclusion The edits made were done in lay language which allows for those without knowledge of medical terminology to understand, and the group successfully hyperlinked some of the more difficult medical jargon to other corresponding Wiki articles. However, there could be some improvement made in terms of additional terms to hyperlink. The "Vulnerable Populations" section also discusses data from not only the United States which factors in data from various genotypes throughout the world. Sdo0001 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Still needs editing (July 2024)
Reference 5 has a defective link to a CDC page ("page not found"), and refers to a CDC publication (www.cdc.gov. 2021-04-01) on Coronavirus 19 rather than Parvovirus B19. Incorrect and defective citations make a mockery of Wikipedia's stringent citation policy.

The article is also poorly organized and confusing. Needs a good edit by a professional -- surprising since apparently a major edit was recently completed? 98.115.40.39 (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)