Jump to content

Talk:Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Triplestop x3 18:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources appear to be reliable, and the coverage good. However I still see problems involving the clarity of this page.

The following parts of the lead may be confusing to the reader.

  • Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) without or with thrombosis (HITT) - This seems awfully shorthand, you should probably make this more clear.
  • Shouldn't the term HIT be defined as an "immune mediated adverse drug reaction" that causes x y and z?
  • "unfractionated" or "low molecular weight" Would it not be sufficient for the lead just to say due to the administration certain forms of the anticoagulant (blood clotting inhibitor) heparin?

Symptoms section looks fine.

The mechanism section:

  • This section suddenly dives into a discussion on the presence of anti-bodies, however this is not summarized in the lead. It needs a more logical flow. The first two sentences sound irrelevant.
  • To make matters more complicated, the most commonly used other anticoagulant, warfarin, is contraindicated in this setting as there is a very high risk of warfarin necrosis; this is the development of skin gangrene in those receiving warfarin or a similar vitamin K inhibitor. If the patient was receiving warfarin at the time when HIT is diagnosed, the activity of warfarin is reversed with vitamin K. -- This part sounds unclear. Does having HIT make it more likely for one to develop skin gangrene with Warfarin? What does adding Vitamin K do to help?

I'm going to go ahead and pass this. Sorry for the delay, as I was trying to get a third opinion. My biggest concern is the prose quality however I believe that this article is good enough for GA. Triplestop x3 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.