Jump to content

Talk:Iron overload

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

Mention DNA testing

[edit]

There is nothing in this article that discusses current DNA testing for hemochromatosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.10.165 (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add reference explaining "type 1" and "type 2"

[edit]

Does anyone know what those "type 1" "type 2" etc are referring to? I can't find references to those, so I'm not sure if those are standard or accepted terms. If they're not verifiable, they may need to be deleted. --Arcadian 00:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Pietrangelo article, where I based this list on. It's not in common use and may be deleted. JFW | T@lk 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's OMIM that uses this classification. JFW | T@lk 08:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- that was what I was looking for. I've added the OMIM codes to the "Primary iron overload" section, but I've got a question -- we have one entry for "Type 2: Juvenile hereditary iron overload" and another entry for "Juvenile haemochromatosis". Are they the same thing, or distinct conditions? For now, I listed them both with the same OMIM code. --Arcadian 14:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That OMIM article covers both mutations. JFW | T@lk 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. I'm not sure now. I have no access to Gut anymore to double-check the Pietrangelo article. JFW | T@lk

AASLD guidelines

[edit]

doi:10.1002/hep.24330 - 2011 AASLD guidelines. JFW | T@lk 13:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

under the heading, Terminology, prevalence and incidence should not be used interchangeably. These terms have different mathematical definitions, with incidence being commonly used to describe the risk of a new case in an individual who is not already known to have the condition, while prevalence describes the disease burden in the population at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.75.175 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic testing in families to screen for preventitive measures

[edit]

Is there a good way to mention genetic testing for families that have one member diagnosed with type 1 for preventative medicine? I am asking because this testing has saved many menbers of my familys lives, especially those not yet presenting symproms, they can limit their iron intake to prevent organ damage. Please advise. 68.106.218.221 (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue omitted?

[edit]

"Although hereditary Hemochromatosis varies in clinical severity, the most common presenting feature is fatigue." Lyon E, Frank EL. Clinical Chemistry July 2001 vol. 47 no. 7 1147-1156

This is also repeated liberally elsewhere in many respected peer-reviewed sources relating to hemochromatosis.

Where is the reference to the contrary? Omitting this is making this article look poorly researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.19.149 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HFE protein, or HFE gene?

[edit]

Text itself should specify whether gene or protein is meant -- just "HFE" is patently ambiguous.

In any case, "HFE" is jargon not understood by the vast majority of English readers, and failure to specify and provide the words for which the initials stand makes the article unnecessarily opaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

[edit]

I think the section (based on lots of medical dictionaries) should be quietly dropped or replaced by a peer-reviewed secondary source. JFW | T@lk 12:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and symptoms

[edit]

Devanshuv added content about the signs and symptoms of iron overload. Most of the sources, however, don't talk about ironload as a whole but specifically about HFE gene haemochromatosis. People with transfusional iron overload have another phenotype altogether. I think we should stick to a single source that is clearly about all types of iron overload, or a source that delineates whether a sign or symptom is typical for haemochromatosis or all types. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jfdwolff for pointing that out. I agree most signs and symptoms were associated with HFE gene hemochromatosis as a cause. One potential source that delineates signs and symptoms typical for all types may include Review article: the iron overload syndromes. An idea open for discussion could also include creating a table with the rows as the organ systems and the columns as the different syndromes. A rough example might look like:
Cause 1 Cause 2 Cause 3
Gastrointestinal
Endocrine
Cardiac
Musculoskeletal
Skin
CNS
Respiratory
Infectious

Devanshu V (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring tissue iron

[edit]

doi:10.1111/bjh.13374 JFW | T@lk 09:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet

[edit]

Haemochromatosis seminar [[doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01315-X] JFW | T@lk 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAS

[edit]

I got to this article from a link in Macrophage Activation Syndrome, but there is no mention of MAS as a cause in this article. In addition to listing MAS as a cause, it would also be nice if the mechanism by which MAS releases iron were explained. (MAS is of current interest because it sometimes occurs from COVID-19, which is almost always associated with some degree of elevated serum ferritin.) Aragorn 03:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talkcontribs)

Spelling consistency

[edit]

I noticed that both the haem and heme spellings of the disease are used throughout the article. Tbh it doesn't really matter which is used, but I think it should be consistent through the article. The haem spelling is used overwhelmingly more frequently in the article, but the heme spelling appears a lot in the references. Before anyone decides which to use, consider that the Hereditary haemochromatosis article uses the haem spelling

Additionally, shouldn't the article be titled with the medical term, haemochromatosis, rather then the more colloquial "iron overload"?

rufiohtalksign 20:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Iron, which makes up 70% of red blood cell composition, ..."

[edit]

(from Iron overload#Neolithic) I seriously doubt this number. From Red blood cell, we know that 1/3 of the volume is Hemoglobin (most of the rest is water), and each (quite big) hemoglobin molecule has just 4 iron ions. Maybe this meant to say something like "Up to 70% of the body's iron is contained in Hemoglobin in red blood cells"? Paul Ebermann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]