Talk:Hepatitis E/Archive 1

The

the "signs and symptoms" sections contains NO signs or symptoms.

STD

is hepatitis E considered an STD? can it be transmitted through rimming?Qrc2006 09:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) generally associated with source contamination of water supplies with limited documented person to person transmission, although sexual transmission through rimming seems biologically plausible.

Pregnancy

Ann Intern Med - hepatitis E causes more trouble in pregnancy than other forms of viral hepatitis. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

France

France looks at its Hep E cases: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03679.x JFW | T@lk 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lancet

Review: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61849-7. The story about its discovery is quite citeable! JFW | T@lk 12:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hepatology

Burden and symptomatic probability estimates: doi: 10.1002/hep.25505. Estimates of annual global infections and deaths. Not sure that I am competent to update a wiki page itself, but would like to see this article referenced here.

Symptoms, treatment

The article has no information on symptoms (although a section existed) or treatment—this is needed. Pol098 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (later) improved now.

CMR review: doi:10.1128/CMR.00057-13, with a separate article on host immune status doi:10.1128/CMR.00062-13. JFW | T@lk 13:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that the symptoms are not different from symptoms of any other viral hepatitis. Ruslik_Zero 19:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary source in the Treatment section

A primary report of research on a monoclonal antibody has been added repeatedly (e.g. [1] [2]) to the Treatment section. I would comment on the user's talk page, but it's one or more unregistered users so I am commenting here. I suggest that the user(s) see the relevant section of WP:MEDMOS. -- Scray (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

wikiproject virus

did a few edits on this article, and tried to adhere to MEDRS, however was a bit more liberal w/ certain references than usual..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent review

APT doi: 10.1111/apt.14109 JFW | T@lk 08:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Other articles about extrahepatic

doi:10.1111/liv.13037, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.11.016 and more besides... JFW | T@lk 14:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

thank you, very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a "diagnosis" subsection.

This article needs a "diagnosis" subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC8F:FD00:F169:8C52:90F2:FE79 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Phylodynamic analysis results

In this edit I removed results from a primary research report of a phylodynamic analysis of HEV genetic sequences, noting in the edit summary "reducing overly-detailed claims from a single primary report". In this edit, much of this was restored, i.e. "Genotypes 1, 3, and 4 all increased their effective population sizes in the 20th century. The population size of genotype 1 increased noticeably in the last 30–35 years. Genotypes 3 and 4 population sizes began to increase in the late 19th century. Genotype 4 underwent a an increase in population size until late in the last century.[17]" I wonder whether our readers will have any idea what "effective population size" means in a coalescent analysis, that such estimates are based on extrapolation and are subject to sampling biases? More importantly, this article is about the disease and not the virus, whereas the cited work is a primary research article (fails WP:MEDRS) about viral genetics. — soupvector (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

as I indicated on your talk page should you not be in agreement, then revert.However the text is supported by a review[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm just asking whether the content informs our readers. How about (as that second paragraph in History), something like "Whereas genotype 2 remains less commonly detected, genetic evolutionary analyses suggest that genotypes 1, 3, and 4 have spread substantially during the past 100 years." — soupvector (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

fair enough--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

edit

• user:soupvector thanks for [4] ,I took a better look at the source,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

two temprature timings

hello, this article mentions TWO sanitation timings, which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

different temperatures means different time to inactivate the virus --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)