Talk:Erythema nodosum

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 Erythema nodosum.

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

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

Online discussion groups or chat forums
Personal webpages and blogs
Multiple links to the same website
Fundraising events or groups
Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

Is the picture really showing an usual erythema nodosum? In my dermatology-book as well as in the google-picture-search the erythema nodosum looks quite different! greetings, --138.232.228.41 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The picture is not typical of erythema nodosum. Recommend deleting and replacing.

The picture is actually flat out wrong. Even the caption does not indicate the correct disorder, if you click the link. I've had Erythema Nodosum several times, and that is not at all what it looks like, nor where it is likely to occur on the body. The swellings are usually over 10 centimeters wide, and there is no blistering or breakage of the skin. They are entirely subcutaneous. They occur most often on the legs, ankles, feet, and sometimes arms. There are excellent pictures available in the dermatology database online... Thanks, Leha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.113.59 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The picture should be changed Roidna (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

This article should be reviewed. The image seems wrong.

I was told I had textbook erythema nodosum on my calves and ankles (so much so that the doctor went and got a nurse to show her what it looks like) and my largest swellings were only a maximum of three or four centimetres wide. It might well be proportional to the size of the affected area - I have short, skinny legs and a 10cm wide swelling would be larger than my knee, but on other people would cover a much smaller area, proportionally. -- Dandelions, not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.19.84 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite good

I've been reading medical literature in books and journals for about 45 years. From that perspective, this article strikes me as excellent. I don't know about the photo, but the description and the discussion seems both informative and thorough. What exactly needs to be improved?

More generally, the whole assessment "culture" baffles me. Typically I find assessments to be unrelated to the quality of the articles to which they are attached.

Further, if an article is assessed and then extensively modified, the new version, for an unknown period, still carries the old assessment. At the very least assessments should carry and display dates indicating when the assessment was created and the last time it was updated.

Overall, as things stand now (March 2009), assessments are not very useful, and may even do more harm than good.

Maybe that's related to the fact that assessments are, as far as I know, the only significant and extensive feature of Wikipedia that cannot be edited by an ordinary reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratman (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. --Arcadian (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed inaccurate picture

I removed the inaccurate picture. The title of the image referenced Crohn's disease, but it didn't even look like any rash typical of ulcerative colitis, Crohn's, etc. I am not a confirmed user or I would have inserted an accurate picture of erythema nodosum. Leopoldmozart (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subarticle Merge

There are two subarticles (for acute and chronic erythema nodosum) that are both one to two lines. I suggest a merge, on the grounds that these are articles are exceptionally small, unlikely to expand soon, and better covered on this page until content expands. LT90001 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In view of lack of objection in the last 2-3 weeks I have merged these articles. LT90001 (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]