Talk:Hemoptysis

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.

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 Hemoptysis.

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

Diagnostic workup

I think that the graphic should be transcribed by somebody who understands it, so that the text is searchable and has appropriate links. Will add wikify tag to section. --Storkk 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is an image while it may be helpful to include some of the flow in the text, I don't think that qualifies as needing to be wikified. I am removing the wikify tag Jeepday 21:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article listed the most common cause of hemoptysis as lung neoplasm, however, most studies list acute or chronic bronchitis as the most common cause of hemoptysis.

Copyright Violation?

The entire "Diagnostic approach" section seems to be lifted from here: http://tomi-md.com/2010/03/coughing-blood-hemoptysis/ I'm in the process of rewriting it to remove the offending material -- JaymesKeller (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it pending verification of permission. It was probably placed by the copyright owner, as it entered on its date of publication there ([1]) by a user with the name DrSHaber (note the author of the source). However, unless he verified permission, we can't use it. I'll notify him of the procedure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differential Diagnosis

Cardiac causes like congestive heart failure and mitral stenosis should be ruled out contains an odd choice of modal verb. Should be - Is this a statement or an instruction? (i.e. is should being used deontically or epistemically?) Someone who understands the purpose of this sentence could perhaps paraphrase it into something less cryptic. C0pernicus (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive haemoptysis

doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.06.41 JFW | T@lk 11:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd wording

The caption of the radiology photo reads "Hemoptysis can be discovered with the help of radiology." Shouldn't this say, "The cause of hemoptysis can be discovered with the help of radiology."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.137.128.43 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]