Talk:Intervertebral disc

Anatomy: Gross High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Animal anatomy Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shawnbrookins, Cksmith8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

If a person lost two inches off of their coccyx due to surgery, would this affect their overall height?

File:Lumbar.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lumbar.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intervertebral disks.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Intervertebral disks.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Intervertebral disc space

No sense for these two articles to be distinct. Suggest merge to subsection 'clinical relevance' for IVD. LT910001 (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With no objections, I've completed this merge. --LT910001 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Nucleus pulposus

Needless fragmentation; these two articles are inherently part of the intervertebral disc, and there will be significant duplication of content. This will help readers, by providing content all on one page, and giving more context. If, at a later date, there is enough content for either of these two articles, they could be re-split as separate articles. LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger. --WS (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Suggestion

This article could really use a section on how intervertebral discs are referenced and numbered in the human spine. Further information could be included about disc morphology and biochemical contents and behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.38.66 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Suggestion/Citation Proposal

I agree with the aforementioned suggestions that this article could benefit from the inclusion of a cited reference detailing how disc referencing in the human spine, as well as elaboration on disc morphology and biochemical constituents/processes pertinent to this structure. In my review of this article I noted the following areas for potential improvement. Namely, in the section titled "Intervertebral Disc", a citation could be provided for the mention of disc composition. Alternatively, a citation could be provided for the "crucial" function of the disc as a shock absorber.

With respect to the "Structure" section, the paragraph devoted to development of the IV discs could benefit from some elaboration (potential citation: Sivakamasundari and Lufkin 2012^[1]) on the exact developmental mechanism (i.e. key players, etc.). A citation could also be provided for the clause on withstanding compressive forces as well.

The "Function" section could likely be improved by including an image of the constituent compounds in IV discs for visual reference, or serial, labeled cross sections of IV discs to demonstrate the various regions.

Lastly, the "Clinical Significance" section could be revised to elaborate on the pathophysioloy of Schmorl's nodes on IV discs, or provide an accompanying link to another article. This revision could also be extended to the article's coverage of vertical herniation as well.

Concerning citations, I believe Panjabi's two-part article in the Journal of Spinal Disorder would be an apt citation for this topic, as it covers information that remains uncited in the article, in addition to being from a peer-reviewed academic medical source (^[2] & ^[3]). Likewise, citation 7 (McGraw Hill) is linked to Launchpad--an academic supplement that is not universally accessible without a subscription. Therefore, an alternative reference to an article or other text based source would be ideal (Urban and Roberts 2003^[4]). Throughout the article, scientific jargon is used without accompanying citations or definitions which could be construed as plagiarism potentially.

Overall, the article displays an avoidance of biased perspectives (with the exception of focusing on IV discs in humans), favoring a neutral/objective viewpoint. It also excels in the area of concise, yet comprehensive coverage of the topic, merely requiring some elaboration on auxiliary topics and defining scientific jargon in a more accessible register (mentioned above).Shawnbrookins (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annulus vs anulus

Is there any particular reason this article consistently uses what it admits is a misspelling of anulus ("little ring"), namely annulus ("little year")? I checked Terminologia Anatomica '98 for confirmation: it's anulus. Mardil (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481539/

[2] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1490034

[3] ttp://www.o-sommet.nl/wp-content/uploads/Panjabi-stabilizing-system.pdf

[4] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC165040/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]