Talk:Subcutaneous emphysema

Peer-review
Right. I've managed to have a look at the article and for the most part it is a well written article with a good standard of prose. I'd love to be able to point out lots of interesting flaws with the content of the article but I see very few, it's well written.

I'll split this into two sections, content-related improvements and miscellaneous improvements:

Content

 * Differences in British and American English are present. Generally, although I don't agree with it, American English is used on Wikipedia so terms such as anaesthesia should be renamed to anesthesia. On the contrary, you've said "edematous" which is correct American English.
 * Hehe, this is because I can't spell. Fixed now.  delldot   talk  22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article occasionally repeats itself. For example, in signs and symptoms, "there may be a feeling of fullness in the neck" and "the face and neck can swell considerably". The article also repeats itself numerous times with reference to the rupturing of alveoli and bronchial tubes.
 * ✅ Regards, 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Subcutaneous emphysema is easy to diagnose because of its characteristic signs, but X-ray is also used in the diagnosis." - Shouldn't this be "Subcutaneous emphysema is easy to diagnose because of its characteristic signs, however, X-rays are also used in the diagnosis"?
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always been a fan of placing History at the start of the article, i.e. the first section, but i'm not entirely sure if that's judged upon in GA or FA etc.
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In prognosis, "As the pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum that caused the subcutaneous emphysema resolve, so does subcutaneous emphysema" That sentence bugs me for some reason. I think it's because it implies, perhaps contradictorily, that SE doesn't require treatment.
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

 * There are two dead wiki links in the article. These articles either need to be created or the link needs to be removed. These are viceral pleura and perivascular sheaths.
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a fair few terms could use wiki links, in order - tissue, stabbing, abdomen, phenomenon, anaesthesia, crepitus, hallmark, adipose tissue, CT scan and benign.
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lower case cricothyrotomy in: "or as a surgical complication of Cricothyrotomy".
 * Good catch, fixed. delldot   talk  22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The progression of the condition can be monitored by marking the boundaries with a special pencil for marking on skin." Single word paragraph in treatment section?
 * ✅ Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much all I came up with! I know it's not much and mostly minor things but that's a compliment to all the editors who have worked on it. It's encouraging to see that all sources in the article are reliable which is brilliant. Best of luck! Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, delldot, I got bored this evening and decided to do things! Hope you don't mind :) Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind? Are you nuts??  Thank you so much! You rock Cyclone!   delldot on a public computer   talk  23:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS
Reminder of suggested sections and order. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, that's done now :) Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Images
Aren't the red arrows a bit too big? Might be better to have bigger pictures and smaller arrows. I recently tried this out on Mesothelioma, thoughts?

Also, what's doing in the code?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely not idea. :| It certainly wasn't me who contributed that. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's from when I was working on it in my userspace, to remind me to look for a picture. Removed now.


 * Yeah, the images could be improved, I may work on this in a bit when I have time (or others are welcome to, too, of course). Thanks for the suggestions!   delldot   talk  15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also startled slightly bothered by the humongous red arrows. Glad to see images from one of my favorite blogs used on Wiki, though :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When I do get around to redoing them, should they be a different color? Or just smaller? By the way, yay GruntDoc! He was super nice to go to all the trouble to donate the images. Wanna join in my heavy recruitment efforts to get him to join the project? :P  delldot on a public computer   talk  06:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think? Ideas for improvement?   delldot   talk  00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GA delisted
I have removed this article's GA listing. It is not permissible for the nominator and a significant contributor to the article to carry out the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GA relisted
This article is GA material, though I was hesitant to pass it immediately on my first read through the article. I'm going to go ahead and pass it without putting it on hold, as I do think it meets the criteria, however I'd like to suggest a few improvements that could me made.

One of the major issues with this article is its technicality and use of jargon. While the topic is just not going to be accessible to some readers, this can still be fixed to some extent without dumbing down the article. I came across the following things while reviewing the article:

"A significant case of subcutaneous emphysema is easy to detect by palpating (touching) the overlying skin; it feels like tissue paper or Rice Krispies.[7]" It might be benificial to reword this sentence a bit - it can be detirmined what "it" is referring to, but it still may be helpful to indicate that the surface of the skin under which there is air is what's being referred to, if this can be done without using too many words.
 * ✅ by Delldot, I assume? Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"The tissues are usually edematous (swollen)." Exactly what tissues are being referred to here? Those surrounding the emphesyma? It may seem obvious, but it isn't to everyone.
 * ✅ by myself. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"If it is too extreme around the neck and chest, the swelling can interfere with breathing." Another one with "it". Is "it" the swelling, or the emphesyma, the actual volume of the air? Or both?
 * ✅ by myself. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"The air can travel to many parts of the body, including the abdomen and limbs, because there are no partitions in the adipose tissue to prevent the air from moving.[10] " Perhaps some explaining could be done here? The jargon might not make sense to some readers, giving layperson terms for adipose tissue, for sure, and possibly explaining exactly what kind of a partition there would be would be helpful.
 * ✅ by myself, I think! Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Conditions that cause subcutaneous emphysema may result from both blunt and penetrating trauma;[4] the sign is often the result of a stabbing or gunshot wound.[11] " It might help to clarify that "the sign" refers to the emphysema; even though the article has already mentioned that it's more often a sign of some other more serious issue than a problem itself, this is still the kind of thing that would confuse some people.
 * ✅ Hell, that confused me when I read it.. Regards, CycloneNimrod <sup style="font-size:x-small;">Talk? > 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"...by puncturing the airways or by increasing the pressure in the lungs enough to cause them to burst." Is them both, entire lungs, the airways, or parts of the lung?
 * ✅ by myself. Regards, CycloneNimrod <sup style="font-size:x-small;">Talk? 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"When subcutaneous emphysema occurs due to pneumothorax, a chest tube is frequently used to control the latter; this eliminates the source of the air entering the subcutaneous space.[2] If the subcutaneous air is expanding, it may be that the chest tube is not removing air rapidly enough, so it may be replaced with a larger one.[7]"
 * What exactly did you want doing to this one? Regards, CycloneNimrod <sup style="font-size:x-small;">Talk? 10:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems I forgot to make a comment regarding this sentence. I believe my concern was that it sounded as though the air itself was expanding; I went ahead and edited the sentence myself in the article to "If the volume of subcutaneous air is increasing, it may be that the chest tube is not removing air...", this seems a little better in my opinion, but there wasn't too much wrong with the sentence to begin with. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any problematic references. A few more citations in some sports would be helpful, and nessecary before the article succeeded as an FAC in my opinion, but it does seem a sufficient GA as is. Images, neutrality, the implementation of the references, and stability all looked 100% fine. The article seemed to cover all of the needed topics without any factual inaccuracies which I was able to identify. The major issue that I see needing to be improved before FA here is the quality of the writing itself. In addition to the jargon type issues mentioned above, there are a few sentences which are somewhat ambiguous; I'd also recommend a good thorough copyedit after rewriting the article some to make sure any poorly worded sentences didn't slip by. Other than these issues, though, the article looks great as far as I can tell; other editors will likely notice other issues if you ask them to take a look, and this could be another helpful FA preparation. Great job and thanks to all those who contributed here! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking the time to do this very thorough review and for the very sound advice, CrazyChemGuy! I'll get to work on your suggestions ASAP! :)  delldot   talk  04:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like all of the jargon issues I saw have been fixed - again, great job and thanks for taking the time to work on this article! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, Cyclone, you da man! (not to be confused with The Man that's keeping us down, you da man that's keeping this article awesome! ^_^ ) delldot   talk  00:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah you do flatter me, delldot! Just a quick notice that I've got several exams week after next and this week is going to be spent with hard revision so I doubt i'll be on here much to make edits (if you see me around, do tell me to get the hell off here!) Happy editing :) Regards, CycloneNimrod <sup style="font-size:x-small;">Talk? 12:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Crepitus
have we really so completely forgotten old-fashioned physical diagnosis? the entire diagnosis section deals with nothing but imaging studies. what about plopping a stethoscope down on the suspect area and taking a listen? damn sight cheaper thasn a ct or mri.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, i didn't see the coverage under signs and symptoms. raises an interesting point though. as you point out, you can arrive at a diagnosis of s.e. pretty much based solely on history and physical exam. the rest is what - defensive medicine? after diagnosis, are the repeat studies really necessary in the light of a patient who is improving clinically? without improvement obviously is a different story.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

bagpipes
Now and then I come across a story of a boy practicing the Great Highland Pipes giving himself this sort of injury in the neck when playing for a longer than usual stretch of time. It's always referenced as a pneumothorax, but someone at that article's talk page referred me here. Is this story noteworthy enought to put into the article? Frotz (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that's a case of subcutaneous emphysema, which is normally caused by blunt and/or penetrating trauma, not by stressing the respiratory system. That said it could be caused by a rupture of one of the tubes involved such as a bronchial tube. If you can find a reliable source relating this case to subcutaneous emphysema, feel free to include. Without sources, I'm afraid not. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Introductory explanation of subcutaneous
The intro says "Subcutaneous refers to the tissue beneath the cutis of the skin": cutis really means skin. Subcutaneous refers to the tissue beneath the skin. I think this should be corrected. 130.14.12.57 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC) (Oops - wasn't logged in) Hildabast (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree and done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

SCE in animals (other than humans)
I was just watching a video on Youtube of a Nigerian Dwarf Goat being treated for SCE after being attacked by a dog, which caused skin punctures. Is there some way that this article can be enhanced to include incidences of this in animals other than humans, or would it be preferable to make a separate article covering the subject in a veterinary context? Dane &#124; Geld 08:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would start small - is there anything dramatically different between SCE in animals vs humans? If not, then it might only need an additional paragraph at the end (something like "SCE in animals" or similar) where you say "this presents itself the same in animals, causes may be..." or similar. If that paragraph turns into multiple paragraphs, then it might be worth splitting into its own article. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Blunt trauma SCE elsewhere?
I came to learn about this after reading an old x-ray report of mine that reported "Subcutaneous emphysema about the anterior aspect of the calf." This article seems about 95% related to the chest or respiratory issues, with very brief mention in the trauma section about pneumatic tool injuries. I was in a motorcycle accident, and I had blunt trauma to my right shin, no fractures, only an open compression laceration. This article tells me nothing about what that finding meant in my case or any like it. Is this a case of undue weight? An oversight? Or was my type of SCE so rare that it doesn't merit mention in the article? I suspect a hard blow to the shin would be more common than pneumatic tool injuries, but I'm not an expert. I came to learn. Any thoughts about whether the article should include reference to blunt trauma to body parts other than the head, neck, or chest, and what SCE might mean in such cases? My impression is that seems an important omission in a "GA" article. (I doubt it meant anything in my case other than I had a big laceration that let some air in, which was soon absorbed, but I'd like to know if my thinking makes sense. In my case the sutures didn't work. The laceration opened fully when they were removed. Might that have been related to the SCE? I can usually find this kind of info in WP.) Dcs002 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)