Talk:Vaping-associated pulmonary injury/Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Try to implement information from other sources, other than simply number 1 with a bit of number 2 & 3..

Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to cartridge manufacturing?
A section on suspected causes could talk about the illegitimate manufacturing and sales of some cartridges. There was just a large bust in the Milwaukee area. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The main article covers the suspected causes. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Prefer "lung" to "pulmonary"
This article contains medical information but it is of general interest including to younger teenagers, as most people who start using nicotine products do so as children. Because of this I prefer the article to be in simple language for young readers, at least in the lead. I prefer simpler language and replacing "pulmonary", as a more clinical term, with "lung" which is a more commonplace one.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The most used common name is VAPI. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * could be either--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I created a redirect for "vaping-associated lung Injury". QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The new name EVALI which stands for "e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury" is too confusing for a title name. QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * agree it is confusing ( however its the CDC)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Great concept for an article
There are already so many vape-related articles and still there are opportunities for new ones. This is a hot topic featured in many publications recently. Some are medical, some are in popular media, some are related to business and marketing. This topic cuts across subject fields. Right now at the article's establishment it is medicine focused, which is a great start. I would support anyone adding mass media coverage.

I am curious - is the injury in this article the same as the one at the subject of this article?

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the same type of lung injury. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
QuackGuru removed an edit I made (diff). I undid his their edit and suggested we discuss here. QuackGuru's reason for their change was, "better sourcing and one citation per claim". I am not aware of a hard-and-fast policy requiring only one citation per claim. I also disagree with a source cited 28 times in the article constituting "better sourcing" than a Wall Street Journal article. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have written, above, "I also disagree with a source cited 28 times in the article constituting "better sourcing" than a Wall Street Journal article and the New England Journal of Medicine article referenced in the WSJ piece.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "A smaller group reported using nicotine alone.[6]" That content is cited to the CDC. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This disagreement is over which of these sentences is better:

The principal difference in meaning that I see between those is that the latter states that patients report vaping with CBD, and the source supports it. The sources in the latter are California Department of Public Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which are generally viewed as higher quality for medical content than Wall Street Journal as used in the former, although the editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine is on a par with CDPH and CDCP. Nevertheless, the reporting of what patients were vaping does not constitute a biomedical claim, and so MEDRS does not apply. Personally, I'd be happy to see all four sources used, and I disagree completely with any assertion that Wikipedia prefers one cite per claim.

I don't think there is sufficient difference between the two versions to be worth an argument. The article has since been revamped so this is probably moot anyway. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much RexxS. The sentences have been edited since I posted here and on the WP:MED Talk page. I actually think the current version is better than what I had written, so it's all good. :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Patients"
Please consider reducing use of the word "patient/s" throughout, per WP:MEDMOS and general encyclopedic style. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group #15 proposed edits
Rename the article to E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury, or EVALI, as it is an official term coined Oct 11th by the CDC UCSFDannyThai (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Define 'E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use Associated Lung Injury (EVALI)' Vanessasuzhang (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Add more detail to the introduction paragraph: Include a short definition of vaping, what ingredients are in e-liquid, and pathophysiology of EVALI. Vanessasuzhang (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

add in guidines from CDC — Preceding unsigned comment added by CP133Law (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Add the CDC's EVALI treatment guidelines to the "Treatment" Section including admission criteria, outpatient management, medical treatment, follow up, and special considerations. Tintrungvu (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Update number of cases according to CDC CP133Law (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)\

Add in links to any relevant wiki page for readers to know a related topic in depth such as US ruling on E-cigs UCSFDannyThai (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Add CDC and FDA public health recommendations on the use of vape products Tintrungvu (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 14 peer reviews

 * I believe the group's edits substantially improve the article with the addition of the CDC's recommendation for treatment guidelines. It's important for potential and future viewers of this page to know what the admission criteria is and follow up treatment and the treatment section is presented in a chronological, balanced way. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations Vuongazole (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a bit challenging to track the edits of this group due to the constant editing of this wiki page. However, I believe this is understanding because more findings are coming out about this subject matter. The group's plan to improve the page are good in reflecting current perspectives of the matter, such as updating cases and federal agency recommendations especially since this is a hot topic. The page is organized well and all edits have good intention to improve the page. All edits are a neutral standpoint; the edits are factual and encourages the reader to make their own conclusion. They did a great job! Agustinjan (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The contributions made by this group substantially improved the content of this page. For example, they added information about higher risk populations that require special considerations and they altered language to make the information more accessible to the layman. It appears to me that the group was successful in achieving their goals for article improvement that were laid out beforehand. The group did include secondary sources for the material that was added and these citations linked to the relevant information that was added. Gacb1 (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After thorough review of the article, I believe Group 15 accomplished their task of improving the article to the current standards of understanding and terminology. Updates to the current recommendations by federal agencies is essential to disseminating the appropriate knowledge to the general public. The changes they made were formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style. I believe the group achieved their overall goals to improving the article. Excellent work! Datle96 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Public domain
Sources that are in the public domain can be copied word for word as long as the PD-notice is added to the citation. These include the CDC and the FDA. QuackGuru ( talk ) 11:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip! What exactly is the public domain PD-notice you're referring to and how do we add it to the citation? Tintrungvu (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The CDC and the US FDA websites are in the public domain. See the citation. PD-notice See Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 06:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Fall 2019
Hello! We are currently 4th year medical students that are participating in a Wikiproject course. The objective is to improve medical pages on Wikipedia through the WikiMed project. Vaping-associated pulmonary injury (VAPI) is currently a hot topic, with an on-going investigation being conducted by the CDC as more and more cases and being reported by critical care physicians across the United States. Over the next 4 weeks, we plan to make improvements on this page. We believe that a more comprehensive and cohesive page will help both the general public and medical providers throughout the world. Currently, the page is rated a “start” article with “low-importance”, but we believe as this topic is covered more through the news, many more people will be researching the topic. It is our goal to provide evidence-based, clinically relevant information. Since this a very “new topic”, there is very limited research available, especially in the form of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We will try to avoid primary resources; however, that may not be feasible due to the lack of information available at this point in time. Our goal is to examine the existing research to determine what conclusions are common across many studies, and to update topics as new evidence becomes available.

Section-by section analysis:

Introduction: We would like to add a short definition of “vaping” and the different types of vaping, supported by sources, along with the currently-used terminology for this disease.

Signs and symptoms: The clinical features described in this section seems succinct. We will add more information, based on our literature review. Currently, only one source is cited in this section, so we would like to make it more comprehensive by adding additional information from various sources.

Mechanism: We plan to describe the pathogenesis of VAPI based on what is currently known about the topic, including the pathologic findings and the possible spectrum of disease processes involved that have been reported thus far.

Risk factors: We plan to add a discussion of the risk factors for VAPI, either within the “Mechanism” section or as a separate section.

Diagnosis: We plan to expand upon the modalities utilized in the evaluation of a patient suspected to have VAPI, along with the lab, imaging, and pathology findings that have been reported in VAPI patients thus far. In addition, we will examine the existing literature to determine if there are any updates or additional criteria currently being used as the case definition for VAPI. We would also like to expand upon the existing differential diagnosis, which is a critical section since part of the diagnostic criteria for VAPI is the absence of a likely alternative diagnosis. We will consider possibly making “Differential Diagnosis” a separate section.

Treatment: As the optimal treatment of VAPI is still being investigated, we will include the currently performed treatment regimens of patients found to have VAPI, as per the latest research, along with a short discussion of the reporting requirements and follow-up care involved. We will also examine the current research to determine if any supported conclusions have been made regarding the prognosis and prevention of this disease.

Epidemiology: We will examine the existing literature to determine if there are any updates or additional findings regarding the population impacted by VAPI, including admission rates, gender, race, age, underlying comorbidities, and geographic location.

We are open to any suggestions for improvement, questions, or edits, so please let us know! Thank you for your help! Sym5340 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * per MEDMOS the 'mechanism' goes after 'risk factors' Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A short definition of "vaping" should use sources that mention the outbreak. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the feedback. Sym5340 and I are very excited to take on this WikiProject. Jasmine3093 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone! We are new to Wikipedia so thank you in advance for your help in making sure we are following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, much appreciated! I have made a lot of edits (including addition of new subsections) to the page and want to make sure I am not out of accordance with any policies. Specifically, as this is a new topic, there aren't any systematic reviews or meta-analyses that exist yet (that I have been able to find). Please let me know if you have any feedback! Also, I noticed that some of the sources I added have been tagged as "needs update" as they are before 2019. My reason for including them was that they discuss processes which occur in conjunction with general use of nicotine-containing liquids (which is stated in the body of the article as well). Do they still need to be tagged? If so, I was considering just removing those citations, since there are other citations used which support the same text. Any thoughts are appreciated!Sym5340 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 review
This 2019 review may be used to expand the article. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation format
With hyperauthorship, is it reasonable to list all authors? Why not just list the first six authors followed by et al and add collaboration if appropriate? You are complaining about extra spaces which make it easier to read and then insist on adding an enormous number of firstn, lastn parameters. Boghog (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Content is copied from some of these sources. Full attribution is the usually practice. Adding extra spacing is making medical articles more difficult to edit. Adding extra spacing needs to be banned. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of extra spaces that I added is far less than the number of characters that I removed. The net result is that it is easier to edit. Boghog (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When you copy content from sources the usual practice is to add the author's names. You are removing the author's names and adding extra spaces all over the place. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Full attribution does not require listing all authors. The pmid and doi parameters generate external links to the full author list if anyone is interested in the 42nd author. Uniformly adding spaces makes it easier to read and therefore edit. Boghog (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Full attribution is the norm when copying content form sources. This includes listing each author. Adding spaces does not make it easier to read. It makes it harder to edit. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Removingspacesdoesnotmakeiteasiertoread. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If attribution is required, then it is customary to include for example template.  It is not required to list all authors. Boghog (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing spaces makes it easer to differentiate between the citations and the text Citations should not look like sentences. See Citing_sources. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A template whose parameters are padded by spaces does not look like a sentence. No where in WP:CITEVAR does it mention spaces. Boghog (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Spaces are a side issue. I have removed them (although I did retain one space before the pipe to assist in sentence wrapping). Boghog (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It does look like a sentence when adding spaces to a citation because sentences have spaces.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice Authors are required to be listed. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently the full author lists are included in the metadata. To render the full author lists, delete 6. Boghog (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have addressed each and every one of your objections. The current author lists looks absurd. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One also needs to consider the length of the imbedded cite templates within the wiki text. With all these firatn, lastn parameters that bloat the size of the templates, it is harder to locate prose. Boghog (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In several of the paragraphs, the length of the imbedded citation templates far exceeds the length of the wiki text prose which makes it very difficult to find the text. Why not use WP:LDR? Boghog (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is more difficult to update the citations when they are moved to a different section. If I want to replace a citation it is also more difficult when I have to go looking for it elsewhere in a different section. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the citations are already cited multiple times, so they are already in different sections. Segregating them in a single section, particularly when they are sorted as I did, makes it easier to find the citations. Boghog (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are citations that are single-use citations and moving them to a separate section makes it more different to find. I think segregating citations should be banned. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Searching for citation names is rapid and dead simple. Furthermore, you are worried that templates with padded spaces will be confused with prose and therefore make it harder to locate prose but are oblivious to the bigger problem of bloated templates that overwhelm prose that also make it difficult to locate said prose. This is contradictory. Boghog (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I should not have to search for a citation in a separate section. The name of authors are part of the citation. The name of authors should be cut down. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * *Guys?!?... (give it a break)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ozzie10aaaa, but one last try. I should not have to search for a citation in a separate section – by that logic, we should not be using the same Refname in different sections and as a result, we will end up duplicating citations. I agree that authors are part of citation, but it is not necessary to include all authors to unambiguously specify a citation or to provide attribution. The name of authors should be cut down – not sure what exactly is meant by this. I would argue that the number of displayed authors should be cut down particularly for citations with hyperauthorship (greater than 50 authors) where collaboration (name of a group of authors or collaborators) is provided. Boghog (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what is best for me to make it easier to edit. That is the current format system. I don't like the idea of limiting the number of authors. When I want to delete an older citation I don't want to hunt it down in a separate section. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 22:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content replaced with failed verification content
Sourced content should not be replaced with misleading or failed verification content. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Now failed verification content has spread to another related article. The CDC is wrong? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

See "While it appears that vitamin E acetate is associated with EVALI, evidence is not yet sufficient to rule out contribution of other chemicals of concern to EVALI."

Misleading content has returned that contradicts the CDC. See this article and a related article. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 21:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to relax. Your "associated" was too weaselly, "very strong culprit of concern" is perfectly fine language. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need to put it in quotation marks. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 01:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Wikimedicine
Hey guys, this is Matt. I am doing your peer review. I just wanted to make some comments/suggestions on your article using your section by section analysis:

Introduction: We would like to add a short definition of “vaping” and the different types of vaping, supported by sources, along with the currently used terminology for this disease.

– I think the vaping products link is really helpful and the terminology is well laid out with sufficient resources.

Signs and symptoms: The clinical features described in this section seems succinct. We will add more information, based on our literature review. Currently, only one source is cited in this section, so we would like to make it more comprehensive by adding additional information from various sources. – This may be easier to read if symptoms were placed into a list like format. Additionally “hypoxic” could be linked to another Wikipedia article for those who may not know the definition. “high fiver” is a bit of a misnomer, I think either quantifying what high fever is or just saying fever would suffice. Overall nice changes!

Mechanism: We plan to describe the pathogenesis of VAPI based on what is currently known about the topic, including the pathologic findings and the possible spectrum of disease processes involved that have been reported thus far.

I don’t think there is anything that needs to be added to this section

Risk factors: We plan to add a discussion of the risk factors for VAPI, either within the “Mechanism” section or as a separate section – I like the decision to not include a separate paragraph. This is well covered throughout the article and there isn’t a need for a separate section.

Diagnosis: We plan to expand upon the modalities utilized in the evaluation of a patient suspected to have VAPI, along with the lab, imaging, and pathology findings that have been reported in VAPI patients thus far. In addition, we will examine the existing literature to determine if there are any updates or additional criteria currently being used as the case definition for VAPI. We would also like to expand upon the existing differential diagnosis, which is a critical section since part of the diagnostic criteria for VAPI is the absence of a likely alternative diagnosis. We will consider possibly making “Differential Diagnosis” a separate section.

– When I started reading I wasn’t100% sure what “case definitions” meant. I think a sentence on clarifying that these are qualifying factors for a known or probable case of vaping associated lung disease may be beneficial for readers within the first few sentences just for flow purposes. Differential Diagnosis section looks great.

Treatment: As the optimal treatment of VAPI is still being investigated, we will include the currently performed treatment regimens of patients found to have VAPI, as per the latest research, along with a short discussion of the reporting requirements and follow-up care involved. We will also examine the current research to determine if any supported conclusions have been made regarding the prognosis and prevention of this disease.

Epidemiology: We will examine the existing literature to determine if there are any updates or additional findings regarding the population impacted by VAPI, including admission rates, gender, race, age, underlying comorbidities, and geographic location. -	Treatment and epidemiology flow well.

Overall, I really like how the article is structured making it flow well and easy to read. I would think about a few added definitions and small changes. The content is great and you guys did a good job with the limited date base of information on such a new disease process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mburger77 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I will definitely try to find the Wikipedia link for "hypoxic" therefore it will help fellow readers in the future. Since the word is used more than once, I will only link it one time. I think changing "high fever" to "fever" is a good idea. We will consider moving the case definition towards the beginning of the diagnosis section. Thank you for the peer review. Jasmine3093 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: WikiMedicine
Hello all! This is Marvi peer reviewing this page for my WikiMedicine course. Overall, I think this article has great content overall. I just wanted to provide some feedback in order to potentially improve the quality of this page.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

There is a definition of vaping associated lung injury that is great to serve as a lead as an introductory statement. I believe it is concise and describes the topic. The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, however more emphasis could be placed on briefly summarizing diagnosis and treatment. There is plenty of information regarding epidemiology which is great. The statistics provided in this section are furthered clarified in the epidemiology section and there isn't any information that I could find that wasn't present elsewhere in the article. The lead is concise.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All the content that was added was relevant to the topic and added with up to date resources. There wasn't content that was missing or didn't belong.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content added was neutral and wasn't biased in one direction or another. All viewpoints were represented and backed by appropriate sources, without attempting to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work?

All of the information is backed by a reliable source of secondary information. All the sources reflect available literature, are current, and are working.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The content was well written and easy to understand. I was able to read it with ease, and it didn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content was well organized into logical sections of mechanism, diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology.

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Overall evaluation

I believe there was valuable new content added to all the sections making it more complete. In particular, I was able to see the impact that the authors had on the signs and symptoms of the article and epidemiology section as they added much more information that wasn't there previously and is informative. There were much more references added that the general public could link to and get more information through. The differential diagnosis section was significantly expanded and made better with more differentials listed as compared to previously. In addition, much information was added to the treatment section.

In terms of specific sections and what you aimed to accomplish: "Introduction: We would like to add a short definition of “vaping” and the different types of vaping, supported by sources, along with the currently-used terminology for this disease." I think this was done very well with a definition and added sources.

"Signs and symptoms: The clinical features described in this section seems succinct. We will add more information, based on our literature review. Currently, only one source is cited in this section, so we would like to make it more comprehensive by adding additional information from various sources." Potential methods to improve would include making the signs and symptoms a bit easier to read; there's plenty of great information but I think in order to properly emphasize it rather than have the public gloss over major details it could be helpful to make these into a list? Can a link be provided to gastrointestinal/respiratory symptoms?

"Mechanism: We plan to describe the pathogenesis of VAPI based on what is currently known about the topic, including the pathologic findings and the possible spectrum of disease processes involved that have been reported thus far." The information and source for this is great and I think is helpful for the public who would like a source to refer to. I don't think anything in particular needs to be changed for this.

"Risk factors: We plan to add a discussion of the risk factors for VAPI, either within the “Mechanism” section or as a separate section." A separate section didn't end up being added for this, but given the thorough discussion throughout the article itself, I don't think that is necessary. The risk factors are discussed throughout the mechanism section as well.

"Diagnosis: We plan to expand upon the modalities utilized in the evaluation of a patient suspected to have VAPI, along with the lab, imaging, and pathology findings that have been reported in VAPI patients thus far. In addition, we will examine the existing literature to determine if there are any updates or additional criteria currently being used as the case definition for VAPI. We would also like to expand upon the existing differential diagnosis, which is a critical section since part of the diagnostic criteria for VAPI is the absence of a likely alternative diagnosis. We will consider possibly making “Differential Diagnosis” a separate section." A differential diagnosis section was made as a separate section and I think this was a great idea. Much information was added that I think contributed very positively to the page (as I described above). However, I do think that some of the information in the diagnosis section in particular is a bit too dense and the sentences could be condensed or made shorter. For example, the second paragraph has a sentence that takes up almost the entire paragraph and I almost lost sight of the information presented. This is more grammatical, the information provided is great and I don't think should be changed.

"Treatment: As the optimal treatment of VAPI is still being investigated, we will include the currently performed treatment regimens of patients found to have VAPI, as per the latest research, along with a short discussion of the reporting requirements and follow-up care involved. We will also examine the current research to determine if any supported conclusions have been made regarding the prognosis and prevention of this disease." The information provided in this is great and I don't think any changes are necessary.

"Epidemiology: We will examine the existing literature to determine if there are any updates or additional findings regarding the population impacted by VAPI, including admission rates, gender, race, age, underlying comorbidities, and geographic location." This is one of the best sections in my opinion, with proper sources linking out as well as information I believe the public wants to know and will find very helpful. This likely could be the information that draws the public to this page and I think this was done very well.

Overall, as I discussed above, great job with this adding information and references. I think you all did a fantastic job, and the changes I've described it above could help you all make a better appeal to the public. Nice job! Marvisq358 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. We will consider using a list to describe the symptoms. My only concern is that there are so many symptoms and I am not sure if the list would appear too long. However, I understand that some readers prefer information organized in lists. I think it is a good idea to add links to the GI/ respiratory symptom. Thank you for pointing out the sentence structure in the diagnosis section. We will try to shorten the sentences to make it easier for the readers. Thank you for your peer review. Jasmine3093 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ICD-10 code update
I have updated the ICD-10 code in medical resources.

Because External Links are not referenced, I thought I'd drop the source in talk so everyone see it: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Vaping-Announcement-final-12-09-19.pdf

Little pob (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The article appears to be out of date
Updated content can be found at

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/t1220_telebriefing_update_lung_injury.html

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s1231-evali-cases-update.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm685152e1-H.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm685152e2-H.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm6849e1-H.pdf

https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1916433

https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1915313

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Vaping-associated pulmonary injury
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vaping-associated pulmonary injury's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CDC2020":<ul> <li>From 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak: </li> <li>From Safety of electronic cigarettes: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Public health recommendations
I made several edits in the Public health recommendations section (diff). There was an (appropriate) "citation needed" tag, which is what drew my attention to this section. Please note:
 * I added more citations than usual given the mixed evidence and variability in government health agency recommendations, e.g., the National Health Service (UK) recommends vaping as a stop smoking method, whereas United States agencies such as the FDA and CDC do not make that recommendation (although they do review the mixed evidence regarding vaping as a stop smoking method). However, if you believe there are too many citations, please edit as you see fit.
 * My efforts to provide complete, accurate citations resulted in somewhat different citation formats for the references I added. I am never sure when citation format consistency outranks citation completeness and accuracy. I therefore defer to other editors, i.e., if citation format consistency is important for these citations, please edit as needed.

Thank you  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Content issues
QuackGuru has been banned from medicine articles, so the disputes below are now mostly moot. -- Beland (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic
See "There is some evidence that smoking e-cigarettes (instead of regular cigarettes) helps some adult cigarette smokers to quit smoking.[30][31][32][33] However, more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop smoking method.[34][35]" The sources are unrelated to the disease. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 05:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the point this was getting at is that there's no blanket health authority recommendation to avoid vaping entirely in order to avoid this disease, specifically because it might be helpful for people who already smoke conventional cigarettes. I clarified the article to connect the points made with the topic of the article. -- Beland (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See "Avoiding e-cigarettes entirely avoids the risk of VAPI as well as other negative health consequences of vaping, but some health advocates promote e-cigarettes for certain populations as a means to help smokers of conventional cigarettes to quit. Research into the effectiveness of this approach is still incomplete.[30][31][32][33][34][35]"
 * Sources [30][31][32][33][34][35] do not mention VAPI and "but some health advocates promote e-cigarettes for certain populations as a means to help smokers of conventional cigarettes to quit." seems like promotional language and is also off-topic. If the wording is changed the sources should be checked to make sure the new wording is verifiable. For example, the 2018 source which is a WP:MEDRS violation does not verify the current wording. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not following your logic here. First, how would you define "promotional language"? -- Beland (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content
Glycerin was long thought to be a safe option. However, the carcinogen formaldehyde is known as a product of propylene glycol and glycerol vapor degradation,[citation needed] these ingredients may also cause lung inflammation.[citation needed] The content is also off-topic. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds on-topic to me; isn't it talking about which chemicals might cause this disease? -- Beland (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No source was presented that verifies that these chemicals might cause this disease. See WP:UNSOURCED. Without a source it would be speculation the content is on-topic. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found some sources that support these claims. Before sharing them, though, I'd like to understand the logic here about this being off-topic. You seem to be saying that the claims are off-topic because there are no sources presented that verify the claim. This implies that it's impossible for an unverified claim to be on-topic. For example, if the claim "Bananas are a type of fruit." appears in the fruit article, if there were no source verifying that bananas are in fact fruit, would you say that this claim does not pertain to the topic of fruit, even though it mentions fruit by name? -- Beland (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the sources I found: inflammation: . Small study, small effect apparently being conducted as part of an investigation of the mechanisms of the VALI outbreak. -- Beland (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vaping with a glycerol base produces formaldehyde:
 * Vaping propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine may lead to lung
 * Mouse study shows no effect on inflammation until infected by influenza, in which case it was worse:

Terminology section
The Terminology section was replaced with footnotes. Additional ref names can be included in a terminology section like before. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To keep the article brief, I think it would be better to leave as-is, or move the names to the infobox. -- Beland (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is more readable that way it was before. Previously all the names were in one sentence with text from left to right like a regular sentence. Now the names are vertical from top to bottom. Names for other vaping-related articles are horizontal from left to right. It would clutter the infobox with too many names if it were moved to the infobox. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I recently did some research into readability science, and apparently vertical lists are scientifically proven to be more readable than horizontal lists. Why do you think it would be clutter in the infobox but not in the article? -- Beland (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

CDC verifiable content
Verifiable content was replaced with citation needed tags. The bot would of added the full citation or the other citations could of been changed from CDC2019 to CDC2020. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * it was me who paced the CN--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The computer program did provide the citation to verify the claim. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 08:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)