Talk:Lymphadenopathy

Medicine: Cardiology / Pathology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pathology 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 Lymphadenopathy.

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

note

Please help to make this page better. I made put the correct information into this page, but I don't know how to make it look the way I want. If there is a standard format for medical pages please format this page to match the standard, but again, the information is correct.

Abandon the term?

I notice the article states the term lymphadenopathy "should be abandoned". Is there a site or source for this? The term is used quite frequently by doctors in medical reports (I'm a medical transcriptionist and come across the term in almost every dictation) but if it's true that the term is frowned upon, perhaps this could be added to the article in a more neutral manner. Clockster 07:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research on this and cannot find a source which says the term lymphadenopathy should be abandoned. I have found sites which indicate the term "lymphadenopathy syndrome" should be abandoned, so perhaps this was what was intended? At any rate, since I can't find a reason for this page to claim the term "lymphadenopathy" should be abandoned and replaced with another term, I have removed this part of the article: "Enlarged lymph nodes are commonly referred to as glands, as in "swollen glands". However, they do not produce secretions and therefore, by definition, are not glands. The root "Adeno" literally means glands. Therefore the term lymphadenopathy should be abandoned, in favor of "lymph node enlargement"."

If someone can provide a source that confirms that the term should no longer be used then please do so. Clockster 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized lymphadenopathy

Is it true that influenza may cause generalized lymphadenopathy as stated by the article ("due to generalized infection all over the body e.g. influenza")? I'm not sure if it is true that influenza is really an infection all over the body - to me it seems to be a respiratory infection but certainly with more generalized involvement than, say, the common cold. Any thoughts on this? References? The article on GLP states the same, again without references. 83.89.200.10 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]