Talk:Hemoptysis

Diagnostic workup
I think that the graphic should be transcribed by somebody who understands it, so that the text is searchable and has appropriate links. Will add wikify tag to section. --Storkk 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The graph is an image while it may be helpful to include some of the flow in the text, I don't think that qualifies as needing to be wikified. I am removing the wikify tag Jeepday 21:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article listed the most common cause of hemoptysis as lung neoplasm, however, most studies list acute or chronic bronchitis as the most common cause of hemoptysis.

Copyright Violation?
The entire "Diagnostic approach" section seems to be lifted from here: http://tomi-md.com/2010/03/coughing-blood-hemoptysis/ I'm in the process of rewriting it to remove the offending material -- JaymesKeller (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed it pending verification of permission. It was probably placed by the copyright owner, as it entered on its date of publication there by a user with the name DrSHaber (note the author of the source). However, unless he verified permission, we can't use it. I'll notify him of the procedure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Differential Diagnosis
Cardiac causes like congestive heart failure and mitral stenosis should be ruled out contains an odd choice of modal verb. Should be - Is this a statement or an instruction? (i.e. is should being used deontically or epistemically?) Someone who understands the purpose of this sentence could perhaps paraphrase it into something less cryptic. C0pernicus (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Massive haemoptysis
10.21037/jtd.2017.06.41 JFW &#124; T@lk  11:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Odd wording
The caption of the radiology photo reads "Hemoptysis can be discovered with the help of radiology." Shouldn't this say, "The cause of hemoptysis can be discovered with the help of radiology."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.137.128.43 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)