Talk:Postpartum infections

One
One sixth of women died of this? Or one sixth of the women who contracted this no died? (67.71.51.92 did not sign)yes that's right however ian muir invented or patented the way in which doctors today do much of the "pre-surgery" action, involving pawn.


 * Digging into some of the sources (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1139579/ ) there seems to be a consistent confusion throughout the article of "maternal mortality rate" as a percent rather than a permille (e.g., per 1000 deliveries) and consequently an overstatement of mortality by an order of magnitude (i.e, 20-25% rather than 2.0-2.5%).  1/60th of women (16-17:1000) is plausiblly in the range of historical data. --64.121.126.15 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please visit http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html and 1/3 way through the article you will encounter an almost verbatim discussion. This article needs to give credit where it is due. (68.162.118.74 did not sign either)

Interesting report here: http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol12No3/infection.htm AlbertCahalan 19:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since medical students came directly from autopsies with soiled hands and instruments, was it not obvious that 'puerperal fever' is caused by conveyance to the pregnant woman of putrid particles derived from living organisms, through the agency of the examining fingers.

This sentence is written as an interrogative. Is it supposed to be on the Talk page or is it an unfinished addition to the article, a quote by a medical researcher? -SeaFox 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge from Postpartum fever
I have suggested that Postpartum fever be merged into this article. There isn't much there, and according to that article, it's just another word for Puerperal fever. This would best be done by someone here who's familiar with the topic.Spock of Vulcan (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical significance
The plague of physician caused puerperal fever from the 1600's through the 1800's, and how the knowledge of the cause and cure for it was suppressed by the physicians themselves, is one of the most significant events in medical history. It influenced/helped the creation of Germ theory and demonstrates that one of the most dangerous things in medicine is a physician with a closed mind. Today, the massive spread of fatal C Diff. infections in hospitals is still being caused by people who refuse to wash their hands. Leading the unsanitary once again: the doctors themselves, despite massive educational efforts.

Good point.Felann96 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the issue is historically important, this article should place some emphasis on the problematic impact the doctors had during that time period. Jjk (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Causal Organisms
I haven't found much data to substantiate the "Causal Organisms" section of this article. Additionaly, the citation stating that the primary causative organisms are "S. aureus" and "Staphyloccus spp." directs to the Endometrium page. That page has no mention of the aforementioned microbes. Ian Glenn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Bernard Rousseau
This article claims that she survived the infection, but Rousseau's biographical article claims she died of puerperal fever nine days after giving birth. Can someone please correct this discrepancy? 209.6.28.116 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Epidemiology
"Epidemiology is the study (or the science of the study) of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations." Definition from Wikipedia

The Epidemiology of Puerperal Fever as written here is most definitely NOT equal to the above definition. The section is in desperate need of a rewrite, by someone who understands epidemiology and maybe even can offer a bit of analysis. Right now it is an assemblage of disjointed facts. For all it contributes the entire section -- excepting the opening sentence and the paragraph on history, (the only real paragraph) -- would be better off deleted entirely and moved to the sandbox.

From the section:

''Today in the United States, puerperal infection is believed to occur in between one and 8 percent of all deliveries. About three die from puerperal sepsis for every 100,000 deliveries. The single most important risk factor is Caesarean section.[6]''

In the United Kingdom 1985-2005, the number of direct deaths associated with genital tract sepsis per 100,000 maternities was 0.40–0.85.[7]

The incidence of maternal deaths in the United States is 13 in 100,000.

"3 out of 100,000", and three sentences later "13 out of 100,000" for deaths in the U.S. One sentence is wrong, or at least there are two different studies with very different conclusions that deserve discussion. Separating them is the a line on U.K. deaths written by someone else about one specific type of death (with a death rate of less than 1 in 100,000).


 * Overall maternal mortality in the US is 13:100k.  Of those 13, 3 are from puerperal sepsis. --64.121.126.15 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

And in this same mess is the sentence that begins with "The single most important risk factor". Setting aside the topic, such a line is an opening phrase of someone getting wound up for a fight, kind of a gotcha sentence. As an opening line of a discussion -- o.k., you have my attention. Here it is out of place. The separate section on Risk Factors cites a bunch of risk factors for all the different sources of Puerperal fever. If you want to have a fight over c-sections (the sentence topic) and expand on the ironies of how the technique has moved from being a life-saving surgery to a cause of death, go ahead and make it its own section. Here it is a distracting zinger.

And THEN is the closing paragraph about a U.K. study on maternal deaths. Someone has come up with a the number of deaths of 14%, which is extraordinarily wrong! Death from sepsis in the U.K. for 2006 to 2008 was 1.13 deaths per 100,000, which apparently is almost doubled from the previous study, but is still only about .001% -- ten thousand times smaller. (14% equal 14,000 deaths per 100,000).

And, the link cited for the U.K. study is dead. Here instead is a link to the executive summary in PDF form. The entire study can also be found and downloaded, but it is over 200 pages long. http://www.hqip.org.uk/assets/NCAPOP-Library/CMACE-Reports/7.-2011-BJOG-Centre-for-Maternal-and-Child-Enquiries-Executive-Summary.pdf

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Repetition
Dear Editors, In the "The Doctor's Plague" section, the line about Alexander Gordon is repeated twice. In addition, the line about Meigs is repeated twice. It seems as though two people wrote this article independently. Future edits should rectify this.Hwfr (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gordon wrote, "It is a disagreeable declaration for me to mention, that I myself was the means of carrying the infection to a great number of women."[21]
 * In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen, Scotland suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, that physicians were the carrier, and that "I myself was the means of carrying the infection to a great number of women.”[23]
 * Statements like that of Charles Meigs, a leading obstetrician and teacher from Philadelphia, were the attitude of the time: "Doctors are gentlemen, and gentlemen's hands are clean."[17] in section "The Doctor's Plague".
 * Holmes' conclusions were ridiculed by many contemporaries, including Charles Delucena Meigs, a well-known obstetrician, who stated, "Doctors are gentlemen, and gentlemen's hands are clean."[27] in section "Prevention via hygienic measures".

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Puerperal infections. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/semmelweis.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/images/ignaz-semmelweis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Edits Throughout
Hello Wikis!

I have some suggestions to make the article more scholarly and resourceful.

Overall:


 * There seems to be some confusing sentence structure in the document
 * Some of the information is repeated or placed in the wrong place. For example, it goes into the signs and symptoms (s/s) in the main introduction paragraph instead of in the S/S spot, leaving it with one sentence--and only a few of the very very basic plausible s/s.
 * There are no citations in the 'causes' or 'risk factors' sections. The information is fairly accurate and would need updating but, sadly, that leaves these portions unusable for anyone.
 * The place where it mentions the Post Pardem Days (PPD) I would like some advice, do you think there should be a sentence where it states that when it gets to a certain stage the mother is admitted or in a hospital setting of possible?
 * Do you think there should be more differential diagnoses too?

Just some thoughts from a long time clinician new to the Wiki world and rules. Thanks!

Jaytro6560 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead provides an overview. The body of the text could use some expansion I agree.
 * WP:MEDRS provides advice on what sort of references should be used to support the causes section. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Name of article
Not seeing consensus for the renaming. Thus moved back as I am not a big fan of butting extra brackets in names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I agree. In addition to avoiding parens as a matter of style, "childbed fever" sounds badly dated to me. Gould363 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)