Talk:Pleural effusion

2003
Somebody should explain the difference between exudative and transudative effusions, and also how effusions can be caused by heart failure. AxelBoldt 01:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If anyone reads this & is a doctor, I need your opinion. PLEASE.
Removed request for medical advice. Please consult your physician as Wikipedia is not meant as substitute for that. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference for statements in Diagnosis section needed
Specifically for:

"Chest films acquired in the lateral decubitus position (with the patient lying on their side) are more sensitive, and can pick up as little as 50 ml of fluid. At least 300 ml of fluid must be present before upright chest films can pick up signs of pleural effusion (e.g., blunted costophrenic angles). Once accumulated fluid is more than 500 ml, there are usually detectable clinical signs in the patient, such as decreased movement of the chest on the affected side, dullness to percussion over the fluid, diminished breath sounds on the affected side, decreased vocal fremitus and resonance, pleural friction rub, and egophony." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.103.18 (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of these claims are supported by the source cited below. JFW | T@lk  00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice source
Quite comprehensive: JFW |  T@lk  00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the referenced DOI does not seem to be available. 62.47.54.177 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just reported it to CrossRef for fixing. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In mechanical ventilation
- systematic review and meta-analysis of pleural effusion drainage in mechnically ventilated patients, but only on surrogate markers like P/F ratio; no data on duration of ventilation (i.e. weaning) and duration of ITU admission. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge not advisable
Arrived here coz somewhere it was suggested to merge para pneumonic effusion article and this one. Not very much used to working as Wikipedia editor. Since para pneumonic effusion is a special kind of pleural effusion and that merits being a separate article for being very much commoner and clinically important than other types of pleural effusions, I would not go in favor of merging para pneumonic effusion article into this article. (Comment by User:Dr.BRG, 2014-06-18T10:10:25‎)

Agreed, merge not advised
Parapneumonic effusion is definitely worthy of its own article. Searching for this topic within the "pleural effusion" article would be annoying and would also take up lots and lots of space! Keep it separate, please :) --Minamooshie (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

JAMA
RCE article 10.1001/jama.2014.5552 - always good value and a great WP:MEDRS. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)