Talk:Rotavirus

rotavirus types
Should I put new information about the rotaviruses under the section of epidemiology or create another section for it ? Sidhujupinder (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What new information do you want to add? Graham Beards (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I plan to add information about pathogenicity and history of origin of rotavirus species A-J separately. I saw species A and B has some information provided but the others are missing. Sidhujupinder (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article would be improved by adding that, but you can add you proposed text here and we can discuss this. Graham Beards (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

URLs redundant with identifier
To answer the question about my edit (sorry about not seeing it earlier): those URLs are redundant because the DOI already conveys the same information (where to locate the work in the publisher's website) and because the template already takes care of linkifying the title.

Also, at least looks broken here (bad HTTPS certificate); the existing link 10.1093/ije/dyn260 reaches the intended destination which is, I presume,. Nemo 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They reach different destinations. One goes to the abstract the other goes directly to the PDF. Graham Beards (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, and an URL which only returns an error is different from one which works, but that doesn't mean the broken URL should stay. Do you think the URL should be ? What should be done the next time this URL also breaks?
 * In my opinion the most important thing is that the full text of the work be easily accessible. The autolinked PMC2800782 achieves that and provides the same full text as, with the added benefit of being a more stable and reliable URL. The academic.oup.com URLs are extremely unpredictable: for instance this one either redirects to some silverchair.com IIS server or returns an HTTP 403 error if it doesn't like the user's network (like the Tor network), so it's rather user-hostile to have such an URL in our pages.
 * If you want to manually maintain the links to the full text, I don't mean to step on your toes. (Thanks for adding those in the first place! I also appreciate direct links to PDFs whenever possible.) You can also add doi-access=free to clarify that those URLs are actually open access, as it seems to be the case right now. The OAbot tool can help you with that on some pages.
 * Let me know what's your preference and I'll try to follow it. Nemo 15:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Primary study
This is a primary study which we avoid in medical articles (see WP:MEDRS).

The statement is already fully supported by the Suzuki (2019) review and another citation is redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

SA11 not a single strain
According to NCBI taxonomy and also the Matthijnssens paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556306/) there are several substrains of SA11, fortunately with similar antigenic signature. SCIdude (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are sub-strains of all rotaviruses: their genomic RNAs are polymorphic. This has been known since the 1980s. What is considered more important is their antigenicity. SA11 strains are all the same serotype. Graham Beards (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit
I have reverted a recent edit. The editor gave this summary: "Source claiming that almost all children are infected with rotavirus by the age of five did not have any claims for that. The only reference to a population <5 years of age in the article claims, "rotavirus causes 440,000 annual deaths in children <5 years of age worldwide."

But the citation given says:

"The disease is ubiquitous, affecting nearly all children by the age of 5 years." Graham Beards (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems the issue was the citation itself, not the claim. "The disease is ubiquitous..." is from Bernstein 2009, cited in the lead, while the claim in the Epidemiology section challenged by is attributed to Parashar et al. 2006 . I think it's just a matter of re-citing Bernstein in Epidemiology (the Parashar article really does not support the claim). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 09:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, thanks I'll do that. Graham Beards (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your change of the citation now, thank you for clarifying. Fvasconcellos (t·c) is correct in my initial intent and reasoning of removing the claim that "almost all children are infected with rotavirus by the age of five." Parashar et al. 2006 (PMID 16494759) was originally cited in the spot and upon reading the article, there was no data that reinforced that position. However, I see an improvement after reading over your revised source from Bernstein 2009 (PMID 19252423).
 * The sentence you claim substantiates the point, "The disease is ubiquitous, affecting nearly all children by the age of 5 years" (Bernstein 2009 PMID 19252423), is present in the abstract. Upon further investigation, this claim found in the abstract is further expounded on in Section 1, "Rotavirus infection is nearly universal, with approximately 95% of children experiencing rotavirus gastroenteritis by age 5 years." This claim is actually not substantiated in this article, it is only used as an introductory datapoint. Bernstein actually cites William Atkinson's book titled Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (ISBN-10 9990234221), which itself states, "95% of children experience at least one rotavirus infection by age 5 years. The incidence of rotavirus is similar in developed and developing countries, suggesting that improved sanitation alone is not sufficient to prevent the infection."
 * I will be changing the general claim of "almost all" to the more precise figure of ~95% as well as changing the citation. Azyn (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. And you did more than that. You introduced poor grammar " with almost 2million resulting in hospitalisation", which is an ugly fused participle and you changed "boys" and " girls" to "males" and "females", which misses the point that this is a childhood disease. Could you please propose your edits on this page first before editing the article. Graham Beards (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)