Talk:Monoclonal gammopathy

Medicine 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.

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 Monoclonal gammopathy.

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

Not clear how Diagnosis section related to Causes and Types

- Rod57 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Since there have been no objections after nearly a month, the article will be moved to the requested title. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paraproteinemia → Monoclonal gammopathy – More widely used name ngrams and searches; in line with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance Iztwoz (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 14:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 13:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment perhaps the RfC might need to be re-thought to attract more comments...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.