Talk:Vibrio vulnificus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 May 2019 and 8 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickb0618.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 July 2019 and 3 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgreen211. Peer reviewers: Myoglobin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Trimmed info

• I think there is an omission, perhaps due to someone's faulty trimming. In line 5, there is reference to "capsule". It is dead beginning and dead end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monodb (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the information regarding individuals susceptible to V. vulnificus infections on the grounds that: a) the list was very long; and b) many of the conditions listed would cause affected folks to be susceptible to many GI infections (i.e. not V. vulnificus-specific. In case anyone disagrees with any of the specifics, I've pasted the paragraph I heavily edited below....

There are people who are especially vulnerable, including those with immunocompromised state (human immunodeficiency virus, cancer, bone marrow suppression, achlorhydria (decreased gastric acid production), and diabetes), end-stage renal impairment, liver impairment (particularly cirrhosis)^[1], and haemochromatosis^[2]. With these cases, the bacterium usually eaajordyn is like so da bomb"@@@@@@@@@@@@nters the bloodstream, where it may cause fever and chills, septic shock (with sharply decreased blood pressure), and blistering skin lesions [7]. According to the CDC in Atlanta, about half of those who contract blood infections die.

...and the relevant references...

1. ^ Kizer KW (1994). "Vibrio vulnificus hazard in patients with liver disease". Western Journal of Medicine. 161 (1): 64–5. PMID 7941517.
2. ^ Bullen JJ, Spalding PB, Ward CG, Gutteridge JM (1994). "Hemochromatosis, iron and septicemia caused by Vibrio vulnificus". Archives of Internal Medicine. 151 (8): 1606–9. PMID 1872665.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

MarcoTolo 02:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Vibrio vulnificus is a rare cause for infection, and most people do not develop it unless they are predisposed. The sources are pretty good, you know. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Treatment is easy?

I dare anyone to say that an infection with a mortality rate approaching 50% is "easy to treat"! That comment is a little trite, isn't it? What works in a petri dish may not necessarily translate well in real life. I hope you don't mind that I've slashed that. --Gak 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Misleading/conflicting info?

Upon reading the article, one of the first things that struck me as odd was that firstly the mortality rate upon getting a vibrio infection was 50%, and a little further down, the article says that the worst prognosis in patients was those who arrived in shock with mortality at 33%.

Though the figures in the article are correct to the study are correct to the study Prognistic Factors and Antibiotics in Vibrio Vulnificus Septicaemia by Liu JW, Lee IK, Tang HJ, et al.(2006), they are a bit misleading. The 33% mortality figure is in the study itself from 94 patients, and the 50% mortality figure is quoted at the beginning of the same study, i suppose based on the author's references.

The 33% mortality figure is misleading and sounds a little daft because it comes after the sentence preceding it which says that patients with shock have a worse prognosis, and indeed they do, according to the study - patients arriving in shock had a mortality rate of 70 to 91%.

There're probably far better studies of larger size to quote, though this one is quite well designed. Anyway. anyone know how to word the article so it sounds like it makes a little more sense? Numbers are correct but the language is misleading. Squiggle (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The CDC cites V. vulnificus as having a 39% mortality rate (see table 2). Realvek (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Winner?

Anyone for including Michael Winner as a prominent victim of this beast? JFW | T@lk 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete again the information on the treatment that refers to curcumin

Its the 3rd time I have to re-edit the same study, as someone erased it again. It is a scientific study, that refers to the antimicrobial role of curcumin against Vibrio vulnificus and it published to the PubMed. The wikipedia articles are not personal pages of the user that wrote them, but anyone can add and edit reliable information. I find no reason for deleting this study. I already informed the administrator for this issue. Perhaps the person who wrote the article thinks that it his/her own property and violates the guidelines of wikipedia where anyone can add or edit a reliable information. Or he/she may think that an alternative treatment (such as curcumin, a yellow spice found in mustard) can't be added below antibiotic treatment (that relates to pure medical treatment, i.e. drugs), although it is based in a scientific study. I think that alternative treatments have to be mentioned as well 688dim (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, after a debate on the WikiProject Medicine I was convinced and decided to remove the study and add it to curcumin688dim (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

treatment

changed statement, CDC (at the website) does not recommend a tetracycline AND a doxycycline with a third G cephalosporin (tetra and doxy are the same family of drugs). I know it is written in the PDF "poster" cited, but pleasse look with more attention at the website itself. the current recommendation is a quinolone OR a tetracycline with a third generation cephalosporin (the latter combination preferred). About curcumin... well, tabasco sauce can effectively inhibit growth of Vibrio( also on a scientific publication), but i wouldn't place it as treatment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.43.76 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New Sources

As I will be updating this article, here are some new sources that I will be using. They are more current than what are there now.

Schwartz, R., MD. (2019, April 18). Vibrio Vulnificus Infection. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1055523-overview

Jones, M. K., & Oliver, J. D. (2009, May 01). Vibrio vulnificus: Disease and Pathogenesis. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://iai.asm.org/content/77/5/1723

Glenn Morris, J. (2019, January 24). Vibrio vulnificus. Retrieved June 13, 2019, from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/vibrio-vulnificus-infections

Nickb0618 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Nickb0618

Pathogenesis

I would like to add a more detailed Pathogenesis section Jgreen211 (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Myoglobin

Apologies that this is running later than the deadline; it should be complete by the end of today! I also cannot make either of the WIP meetings so please ping me here or on Slack. Myoglobin (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the [edit viewer] for @Jgreen211:'s edits it seems the main focus of editing has been on the new Pathogenesis section, so the focus of this peer review will be on that section. I'll also look at the rest of the article to suggest possible changes going forward.

Existing article

• New sections: Pathogenesis

This is a good section; it adds content that helps readers better understand what makes Vibrio uniquely dangerous as an infectious organism while still being within-scope and easy to understand.

One minor improvement to this section would be to better explain why Vibrio LPS isn't as efficient at triggering an immune response compared to other bacteria (which?).

This section overlaps somewhat with the Strains section, but further expansion could help differentiate both sections: looking at the E. coli article, the Pathogenesis section could be reworked to be more of a cell biology section, while Strains could be about diversity within the V. vulnificus species (specific subtypes).

Finally, this section is well-referenced, a big improvement compared to the previous Strains section.

Myoglobin (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)