Talk:Intussusception (medical disorder)

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 Intussusception (medical disorder).

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

Medicine: Gastroenterology 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 Gastroenterology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Classification

I'm not sure it is correct to classify this as a disorder. It might be better identified as a condition. Any comments? -- backburner001 18:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. [User:Miroku Sanna] 13:44, 5 June 2006 (CST)

Pathology

Is there any cite-able research into how intestinal intussusception occurs at a cellular/tissue level? The only thing I know about it generally comes from the (probably very widely known these days) fact that it can be an adverse effect of at least some of the rotavirus vaccines - but I've never been able to find any reference as to how such a condition would develop in any case. Presumably it involves the immune system (hence the connection as a vaccine reaction) - I'm guessing maybe by the immune system breaking down a set of cells that maintains the inner surface of the intestine, but that's just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimw338 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eponym

Does anyone actually call this a "telescopic botty?" I am an American medical resident and this is new to me. Is it a UK name or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.160.204 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this tooTepi (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improper vaccination?

- About the statement:

"it may be linked with certain childhood vaccinations due to improper use"

Any source for that? What would be considered "improper use"? The RotaShield vaccine was withdrawn because of increased risk of intussusception in the first weeks after the first and second vaccination, as the CDC site states:

"The risk of intussusception increased 20 to 30 times over the expected risk for children of this age group within 2 weeks following the first dose of RotaShield® vaccine. The risk increased 3 to 7 times over the expected risk for this age group within two weeks after the second dose of RotaShield® vaccine."

The first source given suggests that the vaccine only triggered intussusception in intussusception-prone infants and didn't cause additional cases, but doesn't mention anything about "misuse", the second source given in that section is "generationrescue.com", a site with Jenny McCarthy on the frontpage...
Why not simply state that the first vaccine was withdrawn because of the reasons given by the CDC?
- The section mentions a new rotavirus vaccination

"In February of 2006, a new rotavirus vaccination, called RotaTeq (Merck) or Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), was introduced after extensive testing and clinical trials. More than 60,000 doses of the vaccine were given to children "

after that referred to as "the vaccine", suggesting that these are two names for the same vaccine. In fact, RotaTeq is a pentavalent vaccine containing five reassortant viruses based on four human and one bovine rotavirus strains, while Rotarix is a monovalent vaccine containing one attenuated human strain.

"A 2007 report by the CDC states that the vaccine had fewer cases of intussusception observed than with other vaccines."

that's an OR interpretation of the report, it actually says:

"a total of 28,377 doses of RotaTeq were administered to infants in VSD-monitored HMOs. No cases of intussusception within 30 days of vaccination were reported among these recipients. In contrast, during the same period, within 30 days of vaccination, eight cases of intussusception were reported among approximately 240,110 infants of the same age group who received vaccines other than RotaTeq. "

Those numbers are too small to draw conclusions; one case in the RotaTeq group would change it from lower to higher than the control group.
- Maybe worth including: the CDC updated its recommendation for both vaccines in 2011: it now considers a history of intussusception as a contraindication, not merely a precaution. Ssscienccce (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"folds into"

"Beside" is simpler to "distal to" so replaced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasound image

Oh, thank you! Kalumet (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Invagination Sonografie.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Invagination Sonografie.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]