Talk:Abdominal aortic aneurysm

Medicine: Cardiology / Translation 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 Cardiology task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was a past Medicine Collaboration of the Month.

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 Abdominal aortic aneurysm.

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

Introductory Image

Is this article intended for a general audience, a medically-knowledgeable audience or both? I ask because I came to it as a non-medical person. I found good info in the article, although many of the terms I don't know.

However, the introductory image, "CT reconstruction image of an abdominal aortic aneurysm" was not much benefit to me without something to identify the aneurysm in the image (unless the entire aorta is the aneurysm -- it does seem rather large to me as a lay person). Perhaps an image with some callouts or circle(s) to identify the suspect area would be useful to non-medical folks. Biscuiteater57 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can circle the AAA on this image and re-post it if people want that. Alternatively, you can use this image:

Bakerstmd (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Images

I would like to upload some images that are placed at

http://www.hsrd.minneapolis.med.va.gov/OVERtrial/AAAdefine.asp

and

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/18072.htm

in the article. These are all .gov sites, does that mean that the images are public domain? Anyone who knows something about it?

Check the sources there for copyright info. Many are. Ste4k 11:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check for info here: http://www.va.gov/OIT/CIO/Directives/Default.asp Ste4k 11:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information in .gov sites is not necessarily public domain.

For the first image, I couldn't find any copyright info. The only way to be sure (and thus be able to upload the image) is to email the site owner and ask them if the image is public domain.

For the second image, it appears to belong to ADAM. At the bottom of the page it says "Copyright 2005, A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.", so I don't think it's public domain.--Commander Keane 11:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image labeled as a "coronal" CT image is actually an axial CT image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.54.252 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another image (From EVAR)

BakerStMD 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes

Is diabetes a factor? I remember I read about this somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.173.17 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes is negatively associated with AAA. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27414727/ 203.0.31.68 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it is a very minor factor. The major risk-factors are hypertension and family history. There are other rare risk factors such as collagen vascular diseases, marfan's, erherlers danlos. Bakerstmd (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic review

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/10/735?etoc JFW | T@lk 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp

I'm gonna try and give this article a bit of life over the next few days. There should be a sea of sources out there to use so I'll get looking and post them below. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

PMID 17885185 — Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: endovascular repair versus open surgery--systematic review.

PMID 17374865 — Spectrum of CT findings in rupture and impending rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

PMID 16973970 — Abdominal aortic aneurysm: pathogenesis and implications for management.

PMID 16623206 — Abdominal aortic aneurysm. Seems like a general review.

PMID 15952445 — Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's MCOTW, and it seems I never implemented any of the above reviews. I'll try to get to it soon, but someone else is more than welcome to help me out. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the MEDMOS headings and layout could be applied - any objections? L∴V 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there are any signs and symptoms listed either, let alone in their correct section. Should probably sort this out. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably bear in mind Aortic aneurysm, which uses this article as it's further detail extensively - yet isn't as referenced, and Thoracic aortic aneurysm, which is practically a stub, might benefit from some cross pollination whilst in the area... L∴V 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

The diagnosis section talks more about classification than diagnosis. Will try to fix this when I have time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section: I edited down some of the information about celebrity AAA victim and survivor Gordon Lightfoot. The material that I eliminated seemed to be the efforts of a zealous fan, perhaps appropriate to the Gordon Lightfoot article, but not to this one. No offense to the previous editor is intended; I respect Gordon Lightfoot as an artist, and for his importance in Canadian culture. Red White and Bubba (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add death of Australian musician Jon English to the Society section as referenced in his Wikipedia biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_English

Problematic sources

I'm sorry that I've been absolutely no help during this MCOTW, but there we are. I've just given the current article a brief overview (I'm going to move the MCOTW onward very soon) and noticed the presence of a few really doubtful sources.

Treska is not in English
Emedicine is not a WP:MEDRS
A lot of the remaining content is primary research, not secondary

Anyone interested in doing some more work on this (I can't commit too much)? JFW | T@lk 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks

I will attempt to add to the imaging section but being new to this, and seeing the article may need a little work in general, can we reference texts such as Kumar and Clark, Oxford Handbook etc? And if so would this include Sutton, Grainger & Allison, (the language in these are more easily customizable to the general reader in my experience)? Tuckerj1976 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Information on surgical treatment

A more detailed description of the open surgical procedure (which is still very common) is needed, perhaps a vascular surgeon could be recrutied to do this. I would do it myself, but I don't have the references to back my preexisting knowledge. Ronk01 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started working on this. See open aortic surgery and help me expand it! Bakerstmd (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infections of abdominal aneurysm

I wrote a literature review concerning the infected aneurysm. Should I create a new page (how?) and copy/paste it? I am fairly new to wikipedia.Roerbakmix (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruptured AAA

Ruptured AAA has a distinctly difference prognosis and treatment from un-ruptured AAA. I don't think this is adequately addressed in the current article, ~~but I also don't think I deserves its own article.~~ Thoughts? Bakerstmd (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. I think there should be a separate page for Ruptured aortic aneurysm or maybe Aortic rupture. I'll work on that. BakerStMD T|C 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

Greater than 90% of people who develop a AAA have smoked at some point in their life.

The term "smoked" is ambiguous. It should be made clear in terms of amount or duration. "...smoked at least one pack of cigarettes." or "...smoked for at least a month." Does smoking part of a cigarette put a person into the 90%? If so, the statistic is not very useful.

Someone should clarify that part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.51.149.199 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the research studies that look at risk factors like smoking often don't specify how much smoking qualifies a patient for the binary risk factor of "smoking" vs "non-smoking". Usually it means having been a regular smoker for an extended period of time (years), rather than just one or two cigarettes ever. BakerStMD T|C 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 23685557 is a good review of smoking and AAA pathogensis, and says there is strong evidence for a linear dose-response relationship between smoking and AAA development, implying the more you smoke the more risk you have. Feel free to add that. BakerStMD T|C 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

underselling effects?

Rupture may result in pain in the abdomen or back, low blood pressure or a brief loss of consciousness.[2][4]

later in the intro it notes that 85-90% mortality rate. perhaps include Death in that list, being more serious than low blood pressure...?

Removng a ref'd negative statement

I removed "Australia has no guideline on screening" with the ref which accompanied it. We should not say something that has not happened or des not exist. Even were we a an encyclopedia about the English speaking world why would we want to know that somehwere desnt have a policy? What about all the other countries in the world. Do tey have policies or not. We should surely publish all the countries which have policies before emntioning Autralia which doesnt. Including such a non-statement is really not helpful and certainly not encyclopedic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

“Rates among women are one-fourth as high.” This comment follows the suggestion that male rates are 2-8% and needs clarification perhaps by a statement of rates for women explicitly. “One fourth as high” is I think unclear. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]