Talk:Crohn's disease

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crohn's disease article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Crohn's disease has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 17, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 19, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

Medicine: Gastroenterology / Translation / Genetics 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Gastroenterology task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
	This article was a past Medicine Collaboration of the Week.

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 Crohn's 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

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

OsmoseIt (talk · contribs) has been paid by Knowledge Diffusion, Inc., trading as Osmosis. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declaration.

Crohn's disease

Ought Crohn's disease of the vulva be added to this page? --Iztwoz (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late, but I think it should be mentioned as extra-intenstinal manifestations. It's probably an infection. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

This "47,400 with ulcerative colitis (2015)"

Represents the number of deaths together with UC.

The ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27733281 does not give them individually.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is very confusing. Also keep in mind that it is intended for the general public, of all intellectual levels. What does the reader have to understand? That these are deaths of people who have both Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis? Or that are people who only have ulcerative colitis? And where...?

I would leave these figures only on the IBD page. Here it is not informative, just the opposite. If we do not have specific figures, we do not have specific figures.

As I have said more times, attempts to simplify sometimes confuse rather than help. And that is worrisome. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Will look for specific figures with respect to CD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New sections pertaining to oral health

There are two new sections on oral health that have been added to the bottom of the article by @Eileeneelie:. These sections are in need of references and also need to be placed in the correct place in the article. Eileeneelie please see WP:MEDMOS for the medical manual of style to determine where this info would best fit into the present article and also WP:MEDRS for what sources are acceptable for Wikipedia. I have moved these sections to the talk page so they can be improved and then added back in.

Moved sections:

Oral manifestations

A wide range of oral lesions has been clinically reported in Crohn disease; however, many of the abnormalities described are relatively nonspecific and may be associated with other conditions that cause orofacial granulomatosis.^[1] The more prominent findings such as diffuse or nodular swelling of the oral and perioral tissues, a cobblestone appearance of the mucosa, granulomatous appearing ulcers and pyostomatitis vegetans represent granulomatous changes that constitute the hallmark of Crohn’s disease.^[2] Patchy erythematous macules and plaques at the gingiva are termed mucogingivitis and may be one of the common lesions.

(Redacted)

References

^ Brad.W, Neville (2012). Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. Singapore: Elsevier. p. 798. ISBN 978-1-4160-3453-3. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
^ S. Greenberg, Martin (2008). Burket's Oral Medicine. Ontario: BC Decker Inc. p. 357. ISBN 978-1-55009-345-2.

JenOttawa (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the above material, which is copyright material copied from the source book. Visible here — Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing this @Diannaa: JenOttawa (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was found by the bot— Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Diannaa: for sharing the link to the list and for cleaning up both the talk page and the article. Have a great day! JenOttawa (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Pyoderma Gangrenosum Image Relevant?

From what I've managed to gather it appears that PD prevalence is associated in general with autoimmune diseases and IBDs not specifically with Crohn's, and even then isn't exactly a typical symptom, the article itself mentions a prevelence of around 1.2% for people with Crohn's.

PG is also mentioned in just 2 sentences throughout the article (the second of which by the way, appears strangely out of place in the paragraph it is written in). Giving it an images appears to be a somewhat out-sized representation, when other physical presentations mentioned in the article (uveitis, gallstones, Primary sclerosing cholangitis, ankylosing spondylitis, deep venous thrombosis, Clubbing, Erythema nodosum) are not pictured.

It is also notable how prominent the image is when compared to the images of symptoms actually used in the diagnosis of the CD.

Finally, I'm not certain it represents a typical presentation of PG, and not a rather severe case, while I managed to find some other images of PG online (some appeared more and some appeared less severe), I wasn't able to find much to point me either way.

TJmichael (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, for the above reasons, I really don't think the image belongs in this article, however, it has been here for a really long time, and I that means multiple editors have seen it and didn't see a reason for it to go. I'm increasingly leaning towards just remove this image. Does anyone have any justification for not doing so? TJmichael (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Less relevant here than erythema nodosum. Changed figure and added a large (free) epidemiological study with prevalences.Jrfw51 (talk)

While you're at it I might take a look at Ulcerative colitis too, there's a large image of PG there that feels equally out of place. Not only is PG less prevalent in UC paitents (according to the chart posted on this very article), but the image also shows large PG ulcers on a person's back, which it is my understanding isn't even the typical presentation of PG (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pyoderma-gangrenosum/symptoms-causes/syc-20350386). Though I admit I have fat less knowledge of UC than I do Crohn's. TJmichael (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The data in these Tables for complications are wrong and not supported by the cited article. We need to revisit these for both Crohns and UC.Jrfw51 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onset?

Tends to start in the teens and twenties. Usual onset 20 to 30. Which one is true? jtg (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience, first symptoms in my late teens, with it getting very much worse in my early 20s. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium dioxide increases the inflammations in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

Hello, about my edit @Zefr: I have found many sources about it, someone professional please keep it back on this article.

plus Voice of America Persian News Network made a report about it: https://ir.voanews.com/a/food-/3956976.html

Thank you. NameGame (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing for a medical topic in an encyclopedia, requiring high-quality review sources on human studies, as described in WP:MEDRS. Not one of the sources above meets the definition of "high-quality review" - see WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Zefr (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Thank you for your answer. my goal is to make an awareness to the inflammatory bowel disease patients.

Now, do you believe that I might be allowed to replace this significant research about the Titanium dioxide in its own article? NameGame (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no review literature to indicate it is involved specifically as a factor in IBD. There are no systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials on this topic. I did add this section to the titanium dioxide article. Zefr (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. NameGame (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Etiology" and "Causes" sections should be combined.

"Etiology" is essentially just a fancy word for "cause", so having both sections is a bit nonsensical. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 01:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epgui I do agree with you about the wordage issue, however both sections seem to discuss slightly different topics. The causes section seems to discuss risk factors more than true etiology, so it might be more pertinent to rename the section to risk factors rather than keep it as causes.

As far as combining them, that would work too. All just depends on how you want to go about it. Justin99887 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment: clarithromycin + rifabutin

There are various studies related to treatment of CD by clarithromycin + rifabutin (both basically anti-mycobacterial / tuberculosis drugs (i.e. mycobacterium avium complex): [1][2][3]

May be worth checking. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:MEDRS ? Bon courage (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to mention in given WP:RSCONTEXT. These aren't reviews of course. So far nobody can state that therapy is efficient. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review [4] with uncertain reliability. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great source, but possibly okay for a mild claim like "no good evidence of benefit". Bon courage (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: there is a limited evidence of high IgG concentrations (read antibodies) to mycobacteria in Chron's patients. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated levels of IgG to Micobacterium in CD patients

There is a limited evidence that CD patients have high IgG to Mycobacterium: [5][6][7] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient primary sources. Any WP:MEDRS? Bon courage (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Crohn s Disease" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Crohn s Disease has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Crohn s Disease until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appendectomy is not a risk factor

Listing this as a risk factor is based on old and poor data. Appendectomy is not associated with increased risk of crohns onset https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11436010/ 130.51.28.99 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article stripped of most of its content

I noticed the majority of content of this crohn's disease wiki page has been stripped of its content. The edit history shows a single person, AdeptLearner123, who has been a busy bee the last months, consistently removing the majority of the Crohn's disease page, sources, paragraphs, etc. We had a very detailed page that had hundreds of contributers, reduced to one written by a single person, AdeptLearner123. The large majority of the content is now gone. On his User:Talk page, he is accused of removing swaths of content on other articles, without explanation, and that content had to be restored. What is going on here? I am not adept enough at editing Wikipedia articles, but I don't think a single person should be removing so much content, and rewriting a whole article. Can we start restoring this vandalism, and look on which other pages he has being doing this. This was a well-regarded article before its content was stripped.

The previous version of the article was not well-sourced and contained duplicate information across the different sections, since it had been written by so many different users. I have consolidated the sections, added a new section on the mechanism of the disease, and consolidated the sources around fewer well-sourced articles, such as from Nature or Mayo Clinic. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AdeptLearner123 While I haven’t looked through the article fully I will say in my experience sometimes it’s best to have a couple comprehensive reviews on the topic (like you’ve done Natures review Primer) and then to find more detailed articles for each section. for example using the review to get the basics of the diagnosis for a disease but then finding a couple comprehensive articles focusing on specifically the diagnostic process and using those to build details. This usually creates a more balanced article and could help fill in some of the gaps. If you would like i could focus on one of the sections and help find some articles to help fill in those gaps. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I also don't want to make each section too detailed. For the Tumor Necrosis Factor FA review I was told that some of the sections were too detailed and detracted from the overall flow of the article. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand this but Crohn’s disease is a huge topic and will therefore be quite long. Take for example the recent ME/CFS FA. It is quite long but appropriately so. If needed you can also make separate articles for some of the lengthier sections (i’m currently doing this with the treatment of IBS for example). I’ll get around to giving some more feedback tonight but will do so on the peer review page as that seems more appropriate (ps i’ve already given some input there as well). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[:1-1] Brad.W, Neville (2012). Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. Singapore: Elsevier. p. 798. ISBN 978-1-4160-3453-3. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

[:2-2] S. Greenberg, Martin (2008). Burket's Oral Medicine. Ontario: BC Decker Inc. p. 357. ISBN 978-1-55009-345-2.

[1]

[2]