Talk:Hand, foot, and mouth disease

Viruses High‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Dermatology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Hand, foot, and mouth disease.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Racosta0511. Peer reviewers: Bluecow6172, LyraSurana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anthony Flippen, Wyablugold, DonnieTrump, Apelle1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I haven't ever edited before, but I just wanted to let someone know that the last line of the introductory section is inaccurate. There have been cases of Foot and Mouth transmitted to humans from animals, though it is very rare. Just wanted to let someone know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.104.84 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to provide a reliable source to back that statement up to be included in the article. Hoof and mouth that affects animals is different from HFM that affects humans.MartinezMD (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are some sources:

"Foot and Mouth Disease update: further temporary control zone established in Surrey". Defra. 2007-08-14. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-08-14
Jeffery, Simon (2001-11-23). "Foot and Mouth Disease". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2007-08-14.
Jeffery, Simon (2001-11-23). "Foot and mouth 'killed people in 1800s'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-14.

These sources are used on the Foot and Mouth Wikipedia Article. I just thought it odd that two Wikipedia articles would provide conflicting information, so I just wanted to let someone know. Ranothil (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and updated the article. Thanks for your information.MartinezMD (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome! Ranothil (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriousness?

What is the typical seriousness / severity of this? My son's daycare has a case, and I'm generally assuming that it's not usually a risky disease. However, the "recorded outbreaks" section shows three major outbreaks with many deaths, and that doesn't really give one a great deal of confidence.

Perhaps a line or two is in order about the typical course of infection, frequency of severe complications, etc... because as it stands this article almost makes it look far more serious than it probably is. [I'd do it myself, but I'm running short on time this morning...maybe later. And all I'd be doing is rephrasing the CDC page, ultimately, so I'd prefer to leave it for someone more knowlegable...] Dschuetz 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stats. The complication rate is actually very low in relative terms (405 in 1.5 million), but 400 kids is still a lot. JFW | T@lk 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be quite serious to young children and unborn babies. Where I live, a child was banned from elementary school because she had this disease and her mother forced her to go to school. Two teachers were pregnant, so there were fears for their health. I wish people would stop going to public places when they have contagious diseases.

How Long Has This Existed?

I hadn't heard of this disease until a year or so ago. I'd be interested to know when it was first medically described, and whether it is believed that this is a new disease, or just a new name for something that has been around much longer. The oldest mention I found was a 1975 description of a 1973 outbreak 1973.

HFMD is a coxsackievirus. See [[1]] Someone might want to edit to include some history or a reference to the wiki page for Coxsackievirus History section. Victorsteelballs (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

minor edit

removed "During June 2009,this disease is reported at Kottayam in the southern state of Kerala in India.So many children are infected." from the bottom of the references. Someone can delete this comment if it is OK -- it didn't fit and didn't have any sources. GMoonit (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

I think there're more outbreaks in Singapore throughout the years at epidemic levels than reported in state media and in Wiki

Lists of Outbreaks

Are really unnecessary in encyclopedia article unless they are particularly notable as they number in the hundreds to thousands world-wide and offer little to the article. I think leaving the current year and any that are of particular interest (unusual mortality or association) would be appropriate.MartinezMD (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this would qualify as a significant outbreak. See article at http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/hand-foot-and-mouth-disease-kills-17-in-china-xinhua Perhaps someone could address this?Victorsteelballs (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list of outbreaks might not be notable. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the list is given undue weight in this article and that the section should at least be shortened. I'll work on cutting it down and perhaps leave only the major outbreaks discussed widely in the news. More epidemiology discussion from the medical literature would strengthen the section more than a list of outbreaks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-technical reader, this section seems to imply that HFM is largely if not exclusively an issue in Asia, which is simply false. This seems in part to result in over-reliance on source 21 (Koh, et al) which is a study specifically scoped to Asia.

Bullet list in "signs and symptoms"

As per this MOS item, perhaps the bullet point list should be rewritten into prose, and perhaps even with an indication how common each individual symptom is. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

Can someone expand this history section a bit? Maybe we can include more about coxsackie viruses etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbailey (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand further into the history section. There are some interesting facts and locations where the disease has been notably present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apelle1 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar of title

MartinezMD has undone my page move from the current name to Hand, foot and mouth disease several times claiming I should seek consensus on this name change. It is basic grammar not to use a comma after the word 'and'. I also used the terminology of the NHS Scotland diseases list and from the World Health Organization list of diseases. If no one is adverse to this I will proceed in due course with my name change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EosaphOScollain (talk • contribs)

I am adverse to it. The last comma, used in the article title "Hand, foot, and mouth disease", is correct. It's called an Oxford comma and is used to separate "foot and mouth" as separate areas. While some writing styles omit it, it is considered more clear to include it. If you have other grammar rules to the contrary, I would like you to provide them. Thank you. Here are a few links:

Also, please sign your comments. MartinezMD (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AP Stylebook - which is the standard grammar proceedures for journalism and articles - states not to use the Oxford comma. This is standard practise, and as this is an article on a wiki using the English lanuage (specifically American English) but is also followed in UK English articles, I feel the Oxford comma stype should be ommitted.

ISBN: 978-0-465-06294-2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EosaphOScollain (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts please. I've had to do it twice for you now.MartinezMD (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the AP style, I am not aware of WP having a policy on that. Do you have a link for it? Furthermore, separating the sequential items with commas makes it clear that they are separate items - see my links. We can see what other editors have to say about this. MartinezMD (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as I read WP, it seems they prefer the Oxford style as presented in their example sentence "The author thanked Bob Marley, Sinéad O'Connor, and a friend." - see WP:OXFORD

We have an entire page dedicated to this (see serial comma). Style guides continue to disagree about whether the serial (AKA Oxford) comma is necessary or advantageous. Regardless, it is a widely accepted practice and completely acceptable. You cite the AP style guide but many other American style guides (e.g., the Chicago manual) support its use. There are also reliable medical sources use it this way too (e.g., [2] and [3]) but usage varies. Martinez is also correct that you should discuss this on the talk page rather than try to edit war the change into the article's title. Personally, I favor keeping the serial comma. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're both coming from, however I just felt it was best to follow the World Health Organisation's grammar term for the disease as it keeps consistency in the English speaking world. However I'll leave it as is given yous feel it best to keep the comma. Sorry if you felt i was causing an edit war, was not my intention, sole intention was to make the article as best as I felt it could be. Regards!

Keep it as is, not an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to specifically use the WHO's grammar term over others. It's no more or less valid than other prominent organizations' usage. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proving a negative

@Doc James: Do we really need to prove a negative with the statement about there not being a vaccine in the US? What's the value in that and not discuss the other 204 countries? I don't think I'd go all pedantic and search for sources that state these countries don't have a vaccine and add a sentence for each one, but using the current article logic I could, no? MartinezMD (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is appropriate to list the major EN speaking countries when references are avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in this case there is only ONE country that has it. No one else yet. Which imo then can create a question for a reader, who else has the vaccine? Would it not be more appropriate to write "as of (insert date) only China has a vaccine" ? MartinezMD (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]