Talk:Perioral dermatitis

	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 Dermatology task force.

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 Perioral dermatitis.

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

Heading

I have presented a simple description of this disease. 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have improved the page I hope. I would like to see a better image than the one currently. It shows very mild disease. A picture also showing the typical distribution of lesions would be great as well. I'll see what I can come up with. Also, I will add a few references for the changes I have made. Have yet to figure out how to use the referencing feature properly.Angavar (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, that picture is not actually a picture of perioral dermatitis at all. I'm pretty sure that it's actually irritant contact dermatitis from repeatedly licking lips.Angavar (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Both those pictures should be removed, as they are very misleading. Contact dermatitis from lip-licking, though in a peri-oral distribution, is a distinct clinical entity from perioral dermatitis (which this article has NO images for). Lip-licking dermatitis has homogenous erythema in a "tongue" distribution around the mouth, and touches the vermillion border of the lips; it resolves quickly when the person stops licking their lips and/or uses a simple barrier like vasoline. This is well depicted in the two images on the article. Perioral dermatitis (as a named clinical term) is a papular disorder of unknown cause, with flesh colored or erythematous papules, micronodules, and rare pustules, histologically indistinguishable from rosacea, which is chronic, waxing and waning, and notoriously difficult to treat. In the former, perioral describes distribution (an exam finding); in the latter, perioral is specifically part of the name of the disorder. - a pediatrician — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.74.162.114 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM. Calmer Waters 11:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Granulomatous perioral dermatitis

1 sentence stub, should be discussed on the main perioral dermatitis page... Lesion (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this merge. LT90001 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Help me here ... while of course a secondary source is ideal -- no question about that -- please point me to the guideline that mandates deletion of reference to a study in a reliable, third-party, published secondary source? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we should be using secondary sources. The content added was not really supported by the primary source attached to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a moment personal preferences -- is there a guideline that mandates such deletion? --Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What language in it, specifically, mandates deletion of reference to a study in a reliable, third-party, published secondary source? (Understanding that secondary sources are preferable). Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the guideline --though it is concerned with the use of primary sources where it may contradict other primary sources -- goes on to say "The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors." All of these requirement were satisfied. Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah not really as the primary source was attached to content it did not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket deletion, because of concern with "some" refs

If an editor has a problem with any of the refs, the editor should discuss them. This talk page is generally a good place to engage in such a discourse, relative to text and refs in this article. Blanket deletion of text supported by RSs, and the RSs themselves, because an editor has an issue with "some" of the sources is not the best way forward. Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a newer review article. Have again removed this primary source [1]. This ref is from 1999 [2] we should use stuff from last 3-5 years. This ref does not support the content in question [3] so unclear why it was added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why this 1971 textbook? [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly concerned about it -- but it does show, and this is an encyclopedia, so we are interested in such things, that the knowledge of this connection is long-standing. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is better than your wholesale deletion of RS-supported text -- because you disliked some refs. But it still problematic. You continued to delete material -- with edits summaries that failed to reflect that you were doing so. That is unhelpful, as it fails to flag what you are doing to other editors. When you delete textual material, but for example leave an edit summary that states: "added better ref and trimmed old ones", that can mislead other editors -- which I am of course sure was not your intention.

I think the text you deleted was supported by RSs.

Furthermore, I note -- oddly -- that while you are deleting text in this article of RS-supported material that I added, you are leaving in the article text that is not supported by any refs whatsoever. Can you explain that? And is there any reason not to delete that material in its entirety now? Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Wikipedia contains unreffed content and poorly refed content is not justification to add more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref that supports changes

I am trying to figure out which ref supports "Balsam of Peru" as a cause?

This ref doesn't [5]
This text is from 1971 [6]
This ref does not support either [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche has highlighted that Wikipedia's content on allergic reactions of the mouth, lips, etc. is very poor. Any editors interested in building such content are therefore very welcome, however standards need to upheld. I have not checked the sources or what content they were being used to support in detail, so I am not going to comment on this incident, but it is a requirement that the source corresponds to the content which is cited to it. 188.29.95.225 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not uncommon". That is false.

"It is not uncommon". If it was more common, this Wikipedia article would be longer & would be in more languages.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1071128-overview#a6

Epidemiology, United States. The incidence of perioral dermatitis (POD) is estimated to be 0.5-1% in industrialized countries, independent of geographic factors.

91.155.24.127 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks good. Remember to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing page

I'm currently reviewing this page. I agree the pictures show a contact allergic dermatitis and since the page was created there is more information on the condition. A picture of papules around mouth sparing vermillion border would be good but can't see any on wiki commons and I don't have copyright of any. I thought of changing first paragraph to Perioral dermatitis is a skin disease where a genetic susceptibility combined with a varied reaction to environmental stimuli causes multiple small (1–2 mm) papules, pustules and vesicles localized to the skin around the mouth, nostrils and less commonly the eyes. It can be persistent or constantly recurring and resembles particularly rosacea and to some extent acne, contact allergic dermatitis and lupus. Topical steroids have specifically been noted to be a causal factor, whilst fluorinated toothpaste, sunlight, and cosmetics may also potentially worsen the condition.^[1]^[2] Whispyhistory (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are of cases induced by the licking of the lips. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx agree that the pictures are of dermatitis caused by lip licking. Maybe we could have a differential section. I'll add some information but won't delete anything. Will await feedback. Thanks to anyone that helps. see [8] and page 12 of [9] Whispyhistory (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. Interesting. We also have this though. "Perioral dermatitis and cheilitis are common in children and are associated with lip licking, lip chewing..." Some appear to including lip lickers dermatitis within perioral dermatitis while others do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes... I think the dermatologists in this area need to be clear. I'll investigate further. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Periorofacial dermatitis is the more appropriate term for the more commonly known condition of perioral dermatitis.[reply]

This is interesting...maybe can have a separate page on 'periorofacial dermatitis'and 'lick-lip dermatitis'....Periorofacial dermatitis, now acknowledged to be due to disease of the hair follicle and caused by occlusion from moisturisers/foundation/steroids is now recognised as a separate disease to perioral irritant contact dermatitis due to lip-licking. This has been reflected in the revised ICD-11 draft, 2017 where lip-licking dermatitis is now categorised under irritant contact dermatitis due to saliva (ICD-11: EP92.7) and periorofacial dermatitis (ICD-11: EH41.1, previously ICD-10: L71.0) is categorised with rosacea under disorders of the epidermis.^[3]^[4]^[5] Whispyhistory (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could have a "disambig" at perioral dermatitis that links to the two topics? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I just understood what that means and I think that would work Whispyhistory (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: or anyone else. Please see a review over perioral dermatitis in my User:whispyhistory/sandbox. Please advise...Do I try and replace or add bit by bit? Whispyhistory (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please adjusted per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS? Uptodate is not a very good source as one cannot link to a single version of an article (ie they can change the content)

Ping me when you are done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II 2024, Goals and Proposed Edits

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erindoan, Jdo pharmd, Adhillon4, Christopher Dimitropoulos (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dengal3, D Chambrea Cruz, J. Chen, Future UCSF PharmD, Joshchiang296.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goals Include: Going in-dept in descriptions, combining small sections into larger sections, editing language to be more inclusive, expand "Prognosis" & "Treatment" sections, add relevant sources and fact check current sources

Activity Question: It is mentioned that it can become chronic. Could that lead to other issues? Adhillon4 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF SOP 2024 Peer Review

Joyce Chen: The group’s edits have significantly enhanced the article, offering readers more comprehensive insights into the topic. Initially, the article was either blank or lacked substantial details. Now, it includes well-researched information that deepens the reader’s understanding. The group has added detailed sections on treatment plans, prognosis, and specific descriptions, making the content more informative and useful. The group has effectively achieved its overall improvement goals. The page, which originally had minimal information and details, now provides a thorough overview of the topic. This progress ensures that readers can grasp the key concepts and nuances related to the subject matter. The edits reflect a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The language used in the revised article is free from bias and maintains a supportive and respectful tone, promoting an inclusive perspective throughout the content.

Danika Cruz: Overall, the group has made changes to current content with the intention of updating the information and improving accuracy. These edits are contributing to their goal of going more in depth with descriptions. The lead section uses mostly common language which helps the reader understand the brief description. The content is relevant to the topic, however there are some references that are less current (more than 10 years old). This could be improved by researching more recent sources and adding the updated information to the article. Additionally, the edits seem consistent with wikipedia's manual of style. The group is properly citing sources and keeping a organized structure to the article. The overall article could benefit from the addition of more in line citations to help readers understand specific vocabulary and concepts. The proposed goals by the group are in progress. The article is presented neutrally and is presented in an unbiased way thus far. More specific goals could be implemented to guide and develop their editing progress. D Chambrea Cruz (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Chiang: The group's changes to the article have improved it significantly through the providing of details and context to various sections that they have edited along with adding in citations that can verify the information that they have provided. I believe the group has hit much of the goals that they have detailed and their proposed edits. The language that they use is inclusive and neutral, and they have done a good amount in reorganizing the article, making it coherent and cohesive. There has also been much work done in the Prognosis and Treatment section, providing the reader with much more information and context about the disease state and what the outcomes are like for people who are affected by this condition. The draft submission appears to be given in a neutral tone. The group's edits do not try to push any sort of agenda nor are they trying to "sell" something to the reader. They also discuss this condition using language that is inclusive and focus on all facets and backgrounds without showing any sort of prioritization or favoritism towards a certain group of people of a specific background.

Alinda Deng: The group’s edits improved the Wikipedia article as described by the guiding framework. Edits are written neutrally and comprehensively and are more inclusive, aligning with the framework and the group's proposed plan. The organization of each section provides a cohesive flow for the reader to follow, and information is presented clearly. The thorough coverage, clear text, and balanced presentation reflect their success in improving the article's quality. The sources the group has found for the article are verifiable, reliable, secondary sources that are freely available, such as academic journals. Ensuring these sources are accessible to the public meets Wikipedia's verifiability standards, allowing readers to confirm the information. Although sources are verifiable, it is suggested to find more current ones as well as a previous peer reviewer mentioned. Overall, the group's edits enhance the article's accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reliability.

[1] ttp://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1071128-overview

[2] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24623018

[3] ttp://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1815308480

[4] ttp://icd11ct.cloudapp.net/ct/icd11beta_jlmms/en/current#/

[5] ttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YF7shfGl5r0C&pg=PA39&dq=periorificial+dermatitis&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVnpzyronWAhVFLlAKHXggDFcQ6AEIOjAD#v=snippet&q=perioral%20dermatitis&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]