Talk:Hemolytic anemia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dshan19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sequelae
This is a red hot subject in haematology: intravascular haemolysis causing pulmonary hypertension and related vascular complications: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/13/1653 JFW | T@lk  07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool- the whole notion of NO interaction with hemoglobin in the RBC is a hot area, I wasn't aware that free hemoglobin would create a problem by this means, the iron is all I had read about. A simple search on terms turned up about 93 hits, too many for complete list. I'll post a few soon. Also of possible interest, hemoglobin or hemin or related things can ( protectively LOL) up regulate heme oxygenase in tubular epithelia cells, so things like hemoglobin may be net protective effects ( cites to follow maybe ...). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Chronic: I thought I could narrow it down to review articles on free hemoglobin toxicity with "fenton" but only returned once sickle-cell paper. I added chronic and got these 21 which may contrast with acute,

$ eutilsnew -v -xml -out xxx 'hemoglobin nitric oxide hemolysis chronic'

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Allosteric effect related to NO ( bit OT, but may be of interest elsewhere )
I didn't think I was making up that earlier comment but couldn't remember details. See Stepuro etal specifically and others here,

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe lifecycle of RBC would help, mention dog/cat problems with onion/garlic for example.
$ eutilsnew -v -xml -out xxx "onion feline hemolytic"

And in dog,

Some RBS related genes that effect hemolysis susceptibility,

Again
is a review on haemolysis-related vascular changes. Should be able to replace all those references above. JFW | T@lk  11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and ad it somewhere but primary sources are not discouraged here and some aspects generate a tractable number of hits. It is hard to find review articles are free full text so if you could find one like that it would be a great help and establish some context. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Heaps of crud
The following was on the page under "further reading". It shouldn't be in the article. It is hopeless dumping of stuff that someone might once have found interesting. It is preserved here for posterity. JFW | T@lk  20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Signalling in Normal RBC Collection
Failure to signal for normal removal is discussed in these papers:

Related Genetic Conditions
Some RBC related genes that effect hemolysis susceptibility:

In Cats and Dogs
Some pets tend to be more susceptible to this than humans. The comparative situations helps illustrate some causes and effects of general interest to hemolysis.
 * In cats:


 * And in dog:



As per comments on your talk page, I'm considering putting this back. An organized further reading list in a stub article needs to be integrated or expanded not removed. If you have something constructive to ad then fine- this is hardly a heap of crud. All of these are potential areas of interest that need to be addressed somewhere in article or at least mentioned. Obviously, people add what is interesting to them and you are free to add to the article not just delete things that would be part of a full article but may currently be out of place or too prominent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is needed in this article is not a "list that you could read if you've got 500 hours" but a neat bunch of highly reliable sources that supports the current content. At the moment, only the pathophysiology section has references, and they're all primary sources. The list of causes also needs expanding and fixing (it doesn't discuss the MAHAs at all). You are invited to improve the article but I shall be a tad annoyed if you simply put the above list back in. JFW | T@lk  08:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally the hardest part about contributing is getting the cites right. If a marginally interested editor familiar with the topic comes along, it is probably easier to delete and move than try to hunt down sources. I'm not trying to make a link farm but med guides iirc single out this area for more concern with primary sources and in this case if you can find reviews are popular culture articles fine but simply deleting a set of catagories here seems to be counterproductive. A serious user already knows what wikipedia states about wikipedia itself being unreliable due to lack of peer review. It would seem then that references are probably preferred to original prose/text short of becoming a link farmor indiscriminanat.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of highly reliable sources about haemolytic anaemia. I think stuffing the article with numerous references to primary sources about onions causing haemolysis in pets is the bit that's counterproductive. The reliability of Wikipedia content hinges on it being based on reliable sources. Yours, a serious user. JFW | T@lk  14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jfdwolff. Shubinator (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * why doesn't that surprise me? Did you ever add anything to the DNDN article? LOL. There are 3 sections above, only 1 deals with non-human animals. Differences in RBC and hemoglobin composition are a big issue here. If you have something to contribute or an organization great but a reader need only read 3 extra heading and determine if any are relevant. This article is certainly not complete and again if you know of important relevant subjects then add and edit for space but right now there is plenty of space. Replacing organized information with nothing is unlikely to help anyone. People who contribute contribute along the lines of their interests, if you aren't interested in the topic change the navigation bar. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the gist of your argument, but I'm not sure if I can. Heaps of references are not a replacement for reliable content, and it is not space I'm concerned about. You wouldn't find a pile of references without an antecedent in a decent encyclopedia article. I am indeed interested in the topic but sadly I care about lots of other topics too. You are free to enhance the current content by expanding it and sourcing it to high-quality references, and I might join you at some point. JFW | T@lk  00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up, surely you are joking. Refereed journal articles and expert opinion is not reliable? Perhaps you have your own blog on the subject you could cite. The issue was never reliability but coherence, relevance, and clutter. I'll let you guys keep hacking it down until there is nothing there. If you know the material and can determine it to be irrelevant or counterproductive then it may not help a reader but 3 high-level headings could only waste a few seconds at worst unless your mouse is slow. References are theonly reliable contenton Wikipedia, by its own criteria wikipedia is not reliable as there is no merit review. We have to go with reliable sources and AFAIK there is a presumption that stuff that comes up on pubmed is either reliable for factual accuracy or represents a prominent view that is seriously considered in a relevant community ( although I doubt suzanne sommers cancer notes come up there LOL). The pet issue illustrates what happens with hemoglobin polymorhpisms which would be a relevant topic. If you can't understand the relevance you may not get the topic. If you have some review articles that may be fine too but usually a few primary source is better for the reader than nothing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not worried about space. We are saying that a large link list belongs on the talk page of articles, not on the articles themselves. Readers come to Wikipedia to read a concise summary of the subject, not to spend hours reading journal articles on the topic. Those that want to delve in deeper know where pubmed is. And we've discussed before that secondary sources are preferred over secondary sources. Since our past discussion I've found another link more related to the articles: Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Note the Definitions section in particular.
 * You ask if I added anything to the Dendreon article. No, I didn't, but I offered to help you improve the article, as Jfdwolff has above. We are acting in good faith and willing to help you, so I suggest leaving out the snide comments.
 * On a lighter note, a pharmaceutical company will be featured on the Main Page in less than two hours. Enjoy! Shubinator (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I propose merging Congenital hemolytic anemia and Acquired hemolytic anemia into this article. This one is not long enough to justify forking. The forks are very much duplicates of what is already written here, and, according to http://stats.grok.se/, disappointingly few readers find those forks anyway to make a change to it. If merging, the classification of Template:Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes may remain the same, but with unlinked hereditary and acquired. The infoboxes in the forks may be merged too. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, there are too many "What links here" to justify merging. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of ways to classify haemolytic anaemia. This is not a bad way of going about it. JFW | T@lk  09:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thrombotic
... complications are quite common. The mechanism is still a bit obscure 10.1111/bjh.13183 (review Br J Haem) JFW &#124; T@lk  22:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)