Template:Did you know nominations/Superficial vein thrombosis
Appearance
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Superficial vein thrombosis
[edit]![A superficial vein thrombosis in the great saphenous vein.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Great_saphenous_vein_thrombosis_05091312009.jpg/120px-Great_saphenous_vein_thrombosis_05091312009.jpg)
A superficial vein thrombosis in the great saphenous vein.
- ... that even a "benign" blood clot in a superficial vein can lead to serious complications? Source: "Thrombosis of the superficial venous system has traditionally been considered to be a benign, self-limiting condition..." (Cosmi et al, DOI: 10.1111/jth.12986); "...a history of clinical SVT was associated with a 6.3-fold increased risk of DVT and a 3.9-fold increased risk of PE." (Kalodiki et al, PMID 22634973)
- Reviewed: Westgate Tower
- Comment: Expanded from ~1k characters to >7k characters.
5x expanded by Biochemistry&Love (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Expanded >5* and a major improvement to the previous article, giving a complete different meaning. I couldn't access all sources but particularly found the reference(3) useful/relevant. Article demonstrates that the topic is still evolving in aetiology and best treatment options. I anticipate it will change again in many areas. Well done. It's important and a hot topic at moment. basic dyk review criteria appear sound. I created SFJ to link to. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)