Wikipedia

See the entry for ITP in Wikipedia..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic_thrombocytopenic_purpura

So much rubbish, makes you wonder about everything else they publish. I don't believe anything in Wiki, this is why.

Ann, you know you can edit the content. I did a quick scan and most of it looked reasonable if a bit dated, but I would never use Wikipedia for a definitive source of anything except for celebrity bios and travel trivia.

You can't edit it. If you do, the person who sees themselves as the authority for that page will immediately roll it back. I've tried it in the past and had arguments about it.

There's lots of bits of it that are wrong.. like..

"is defined as isolated low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) with normal bone marrow" while it's not normal to get the bone marrow tested.

"Two distinct clinical syndromes manifest as an acute condition in children and a chronic condition in adults." We all know it's not that straight forward. Not all children are acute and not all adults are chronic.

"The acute form often follows an infection and has a spontaneous resolution within 2 months".. often? After two months?

Then they say antibodies are detectable and we know they aren't always as there are two types, the antibody mediated and the T cell mediated which they don't mention.. and on it goes...

Ha, I tried editing that page a few times too. They keep changing it back. I don't like the way any of it is written. If you're going to do a page on Wiki, you should at least make sure that what you say is correct. That's what gives it a bad name.

I don't like Wiki either....NOT credible.

Ann wrote:

Then they say antibodies are detectable and we know they aren't always as there are two types

Apparently someone has since edited that:

In approximately 60 percent of cases, antibodies against platelets can be detected.[2] Most often these antibodies are against platelet membrane glycoproteins IIb-IIIa or Ib-IX, and are of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) type. Some renowned research, the Harrington–Hollingsworth experiment, established the immune pathogenesis of ITP.[3]

I wonder if footnoting is the key to making successful edits which stick. That would be a good thing.

Should be mandatory when posting articles on wiki in my opinion Rob

I just can't get upset about a Wikipedia article because I know they are not a good source of knowledge and would never go there for information.

I do get upset because other people do believe what they say and that bothers me.

Rob, the bit I quoted was somewhere else there. I noticed the contradictory bit later too.

[ITP] "is defined as isolated low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) with normal bone marrow"

I found the missing footnote: e-Study Guide for: Essentials of Rubin's Pathology By Cram101 Textbook Reviews
No kidding! Direct plagiarism without attribution!
Does anyone have a copy of Rubin's Pathology to see if the same definition is in there? Rubin's should be a good source, but Cram101 Textbook Reviews?

If one is not adequately skeptical, they shouldn't look anything up on the internet - ever - because even primary sources can be wrong. Taken with a [strike]grain[/strike] shaker full of salt, I find Wikipedia to be an excellent source of possibly true information that may or may not be included in places like WebMD, which I also read with skepticism.

I think we can put some of these sources on a scale.

Wiki - 2
WebMD - 5
NIH - 8
Blood Journal - 9

Of course you have to be skeptical when you read anything, but you also have to believe that some sources are credible, and that some are more reliable than others.

Like Tamar, I will only use Wiki if I want to know John Travolta's birthday or something like that.

I understand the problem with Wikipedia. For example, its ITP article states:

Recent research now indicates that impaired production of the glycoprotein hormone thrombopoietin, which is the stimulant for platelet production, may be a contributing factor to the reduction in circulating platelets.

Wikipedia gave no sources for this information. I googled the first half of this statement (in quotes) and got 134 exact matches. None of the matches gave sources. None of the matches was a highly reliable or primary source, but I suspect that the source was the book "Haematology Made Easy" (heh). It is impossible to tell who plagiarized from whom, but I suspect that many plagiarized from Wikipedia.

If this information is incorrect, then the error is magnified by the vast readership and easy plagiarism of Wikipedia.

It seems that this information is mostly correct. Thrombopoietin is produced in the liver, and production can be impaired by certain forms of liver disease, or by a genetic defect, although these would not be ITP but rather other causes of thrombocytopenia.

I find Wikipedia, as a secondary source, to be more thorough and comprehensive than any other, but more in need of fact-checking. It is also extremely convenient to use, as so much of the terminology is cross-linked to other articles.

Pass the salt, please.

Has this already been discussed?
www.bloodjournal.org/content/124/21/4187 December 6, 2014; Blood: 124 (21)
Detection of Anti-Thrombopoietin Antibodies in Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia

Edit:
Or this?
www.bloodjournal.org/content/98/12/3241 December 1, 2001; Blood: 98 (12)
Thrombocytopenia caused by the development of antibodies to thrombopoietin

I'm not sure, Rob. I don't seem to remember a discussion about that.