Talk:Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer:  Triplestop  x3  18:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources appear to be reliable, and the coverage good. However I still see problems involving the clarity of this page.

The following parts of the lead may be confusing to the reader.
 * Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) without or with thrombosis (HITT) - This seems awfully shorthand, you should probably make this more clear.
 * Shouldn't the term HIT be defined as an "immune mediated adverse drug reaction" that causes x y and z?
 *  "unfractionated" or "low molecular weight" Would it not be sufficient for the lead just to say due to the administration certain forms of the anticoagulant (blood clotting inhibitor) heparin?
 * Changes to the intro all followed through. JFW | T@lk  18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms section looks fine.

The mechanism section:
 * This section suddenly dives into a discussion on the presence of anti-bodies, however this is not summarized in the lead. It needs a more logical flow. The first two sentences sound irrelevant.
 * Not sure what else I could do to improve flow. JFW | T@lk  18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To make matters more complicated, the most commonly used other anticoagulant, warfarin, is contraindicated in this setting as there is a very high risk of warfarin necrosis; this is the development of skin gangrene in those receiving warfarin or a similar vitamin K inhibitor. If the patient was receiving warfarin at the time when HIT is diagnosed, the activity of warfarin is reversed with vitamin K. -- This part sounds unclear. Does having HIT make it more likely for one to develop skin gangrene with Warfarin? What does adding Vitamin K do to help?
 * Apparently HIT + warfarin therapy increases risk of gangrene markedly. I will make it clearer. JFW | T@lk  22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vitamin K reverses the effect of warfarin and abates the risk of gangrene. I thought the flow of the text made that clear. JFW | T@lk  20:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Sorry for the delay, as I was trying to get a third opinion. My biggest concern is the prose quality however I believe that this article is good enough for GA.  Triplestop  x3  21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)