Talk:Agranulocytosis

Weird name

Could anyone please explain why is it called 'agranulocytosis'? I mean, I get 'granulopenia' is 'low' count of granulocytes, the same as 'leukopenia' is 'low' count of leukocytes etc. But with 'agranulocytosis' we have 'granulocytosis' which is 'high' count of granulocytes jammed it with 'a-' to get something like 'an opposite to high count of granulocytes.' Who came up with such monstrosity? Erythropenia, for example, is not called 'anerythrocytosis', so I'd guess it has something to do with a scientist who discovered the condition and named it according to his/her, ehh, logic?

Are monocytes granulocytes? Do lymphocytes contain granules?

Although monocytes may contain fine granules they are not classified as granulocytes. Neither do lymphocytes, although a category of them called large granular lymphocytes (LGLs) may contain granules in their cytoplasm. 84.205.227.5 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk

i am doing a debate on wether or not people who suffer from schizophrenia should be forced to take medication. Any options or sides to this story that i might not have considered?

Wrong address mate. This is not a discussion site. JFW | T@lk 02:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Agranulocytosis meaning increased production of granulocytes. The 'A' prefix means lack of (eg Aphasia, Apraxia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.253.91 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I must admit that I also disagree with agranulocytosis meaning increased production of granulocytes. Furthermore, the evidence website used for such as statement in the article no longer exists.

It depends on how you parse the word. So we have (a)-(granulocyte)-(osis): (not)-(cell with granules)-(a large number), right? Except that you could also parse it like this: (agranulocyte)-osis: (a kind of cell with no granules)-(a large number). Either could be correct according to the word formation. This is why we rely on proper sources instead of making up article simply based on the etymology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But I'm going to take it down. As a medical student it struck me as the wrong definition - you hear the term agranulocytosis a lot and i've never heard it used to describe a proliferation of agranulocytes. There needs to be evidence to prove this point and at the moment that is lacking from this article (the link given no longer works which was http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/hcp/templates/info/error404.jsp which I've also deleted). I'm going to link to an emedicine article (written by senior doctor) which defines the term agranulocytosis as used by doctors, since it is a term largely used by doctors. I have also found the definition of agranulocytosis in the Oxford Medical Dictionary which is as i've been arguing and shall reference to that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.90.246 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the correct link to Dorland's at Merck. It's a much better source than 'yourdictionary.com' WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

This article looks into case reports etc on non-chemo drugs causing agranulocytosis. JFW | T@lk 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That systematic review is now free at this link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I saw all of the medicines listed as causes with almost no references. There was one link that seemed to be for all of them - to a psychology text! I followed the link to the page for each medicine, and found almost no references there either. For the few that had references I copied them here, and for all the others I put in "citation needed". Then I came to this talk page to explain what I did - and found your reference that explains everything! Too bad no one put it into the page until now though. I reverted that mess that I made and put in your link as the reference. It is now clear that the psych text is only an additional reference for clozapine, so I left it in. StormWillLaugh (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)