Talk:Lithopedion

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.

Women's Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Bizarre stats[edit]

"Stone babies are rare, occurring in only 0.0045 percent (1 in 22,000) of pregnancies. Fewer than 300 cases have been noted in medical literature accumulated over some 400 years."

By my calculations that's suggesting there's only been about six and half million pregnancies (22000 x 300) observed by the medical profession in the last four hundred years, which is staggeringly short of the mark considering about one hundred and thirty million births (global pop. over mean birth rate) occurred in 2005 alone. Although I'm not suggesting all would have been observed, even recording the outcome of a single percent of those births would have beaten that figure twice over in a single year. I'm sure I could rustle up a more accurate ratio, but there's little point as it'd be original research (shock! horror!). I'll just lop the incidence figures off of the main article instead. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citations?[edit]

do we have a citation for this -- The oldest reported case is that of a 94 year old woman, whose lithopedion had probably been present for over 60 years

Justforasecond 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs update i think[edit]

there is a more recent case. here's the link if anyone wants to update the page http://www.omgfactsonline.com/92-year-old-huang-yijun-pregnant-sixty-years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karesel (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table?[edit]

Putting that much text into a narrow table column seems silly. Perhaps using subsections would be better when the number of cases is so low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.105.247 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Khairul Islam 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam (talk • contribs)

Absolutely. Now that I've seen this page, I've noted down that it needs some reformatting. Probably that bullets would be better, or just normal prose paragraphs... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, by forcing most of the other columns to much narrower widths. --Thnidu (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery date for Huang Yijun[edit]

We report 2013, but there's news around the internet dated 2009, such as http://www.nbcnews.com/health/curious-case-stone-baby-1C9926251 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.64.180 (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lithopedion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithopedion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICD codes[edit]

The ICD codes added today are from chapters intended to code the fetus' episode. It would not be expected to see them on the mother's spell, and she would need different codes. However I need to read the article more thoroughly before adding. (Likely to be O02.1 and O36.4 from reading just the lead). Little pob (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all is needed is the "missed abortion" code—so have added this. Wanted to indicate that the code would be dependent on whether you were looking at the mother or the fetus, and have hopefully done so. Note for researchers; I'm not sure which regions globally generate a spell for the fetus - check with your local coding team. Little pob (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to "Bizzare Stats"[edit]

Just want to point out that miscarriages are a complete and valid existence [Edit:] If you mean there have only been six and a half million births, rather than pregnancies, then your data would be more accurate. But there is one problem. You are multiplying by exactly 300, rather than the exact number of births. So if you are looking for a rough estimate, then yes, there have been about six and a half million births, according to your calculations. (By the way, I'm a middle schooler in 2024, and you were likely older than I am when you wrote your response box in 2006. Given these stats, I would guess you are currently around the age of 35 - 60. So. You've been bested by Gen. Alpha :]) - Anonymous 2603:7080:D73D:F900:9777:8D4A:650C:DBC8 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]