Talk:Historical mortality rates of puerperal fever

Medicine Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No information about general incidence, just hospitals which adopted cleanliness. The article needs renaming to reflect its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F010:3FE:FFEC:0:0:0:F4 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and table formatting problems

Welcome to this rather specialized page that provides historical data on puerperal or childbed fever, which are deemed too exentive or too specialised to fit in other wiki pages on puerperal fever, Ignaz Semmelweis and an article to come on medical (mal)practices in the 1800s. Puerperal fever is a true horror story (probably one of the best available) of misconceived medical thoughts and poor consciousness and knowledge of epistimology and scientific reasoning, and in terms of Semmelweis, a wasted life.

Although I've found an excellent VBA macro that converts Excel tables to wiki code [[1]] the complexity and peculiarities of wiki table code sucks the life out of me. The tables come out boring at best, sometimes downright ugly - if someone more skilled than I could improve the looks it would be much appreciated. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia self-reference

The third paragraph self-references Wikipedia making an opinion on other articles. I think this is completely unnecessary, if not harmful. --Azarien (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but why?

I don't understand how this could go on for years? If there was such high mortality rate, why did women risk their lives going to this 'clinic' instead of delivering children safely at home? The 'clinic' should've been closed and burnt to the ground in two months or so.--Azarien (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Wien in Article

I'd like to point out in the Dublin/Vienna comparison graph and it's caption compares Dublin and Wien, German for Vienna. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.163.55 (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedia article

This seems to be a condensation of some fascinating research, but not an encyclopedia article at all. It has way too much detail about a very obscure point. The research itself deserves a mention in a more general article about infection control or something. Mrees1997 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between illness and death?

The introduction refers to "puerperal fever, or childbed fever, was rampant, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of admitted patients. He was disturbed by these mortality rates". Isn't that confusing the rate of illness with death? Not all cases of puerperal fever resulted in death - I assume.124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "Five-o'Clock Fever

I came across this page while searching information on what is called "Five-o'Clock Fever". However I am not still sure if puerperal fever happens to be the same i.e. five-o'clock fever. Shall appreciate information on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suneeldurve (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40%

what is the source for the 40%, the table shows 31.4% max (from 239 cases). The same number is also quoted in the Maternal death article. Gendalv (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]