Talk:Wound

Lacerations

I've never found anything to back up this definition, and there's no cite listed. I've seen far more places, such as health-a-to-z, medterms, and, you know, the dictionary, refer to lacerations as cuts, not something caused by a blunt object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.126.23 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition of laceration as a blunt force injury is significant in medicolegal situations (e.g. forensics). Anecdotally, as medical students we were warned to avoid referring to a cut as a laceration when it more properly might be an incised wound.

I went looking for some citations because I came here hoping to find them, and googling on "medicolegal importance of lacerations" turns up a few hits. Here are ones I think you may like to adopt:

• http://forensicpathologyonline.com/E-Book/injuries
• http://www.cmej.org.za/index.php/cmej/article/download/316/201‎
• http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/woundsdws.pdf

Because the first is a web site rather than a PDF I would start with that. 91.220.136.139 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wound healing

I removed the following from this section:

Make sure you wash your hands, continously, to prevent contamination of the wound. Always use diposible gloves if available(found in stores everywhere).

Make sure you know what you're doing before you touch the wound in any way.

After you're finished cleaning the wound, cover it to prevent infection.

... since it doesn't make much sense, and the content is already mentioned in the article. If someone wants to rephrase it and put it back please do - I'm not really sure what this section is meant to say but I'm fairly sure the above doesn't add anything to the article. Tjwood 13:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio and redundancy

the contents of the wound healing section were clearly cut and pasted from this page so I cut them out. There is already a wound healing phases page so I left a blurb and linked to that instead. I'll expand the phases page soon.

Also, I'm a little concerned about the medical advice this article gives. It seems like some of the wording is vague and could be misinterpreted, causing harm. like when it says, 'remove the cause of the injury', do you think that could be interpreted as 'pull the thing out of the wound'? I think it should be made clearer that you should never remove an impaled object. And when it talks about touching a wound, isn't there a concern about body fluids and disease transmission? It seems like this is a really cursory treatment of wound care anyway, and that could lead to harm to the patient. maybe we should link to a more complete first aid guide. Also, you know there's already a first aid page. --Delldot 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically...

The first line of the article says, "A wound is type of a physical trauma wherein the skin is torn, cut or punctured." But as I understand it, closed fractures, sprains, bruises and the like are also technically wounds; the skin does not have to be opened. Can anyone confirm or gainsay? Delldot 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like this has been corrected. :) delldot | talk 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I marked this article as requiring cleanup as the first aid section doesn't seem very encyclopedic, and needs stylistic improvements anyway. -- Hex 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. It needs to be more systematic e.g. according to depth/severity. I am not aware of grading scales for wounds, but they may exist. JFW | T@lk 17:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Police

It is to be noted that gunshot and wounds caused by bladed weapons, blunt force weapons are reported to the police by all hospitals in the U.S.A., as are certain trauma, wounds. Martial Law 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Medical advice

This article gives first aid direction and reads like a how to manual, which Wikipedia is not. There are also WP:MOS concerns about addressing the reader. I suggest a major edit to the page to remove this material. I'm going to tag the problematic section. delldot | talk 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting link about new method for infection screening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6427787.stm

Shinobu 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistical wound "lethality"

Should there be a section with the likelihood of a wound being lethal or not based on statistics, as in, a leg gunshot versus an arm gunshot, which is more likely to be lethal? Juicex2 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CITATIONS

I do not see anywhere where citations would be required. It would be helpful if somebody would point out places where citations are needed. --ItsJodo (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, most of the article is very basic. I've marked the few places I thought they were needed. delldot talk 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see 2 retracted citations in this article that could use with replacing. I believe ref#15 could be replaced with https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31958526/. I'm a new editor, but I'm going to try to make this change. Mnunemaker (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Puncture wounds/Penetration wounds

The article doesn't make clear the difference between puncture and penetration wounds. Can someone clear it up? delldot talk 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As of 7 April 2022, there's a distinction between laceration wounds and puncture wounds. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Image reverts

I noticed a bit of a battle going on in the history of this article over whether an image should be included. I'd strongly urge both parties to stop reverting each other and bring it here to discuss. After a little bout of edit warring with MYSELF because I'm an idiot and don't know how to use the show preview button, I restored the image that was originally here, just so we'd have one in the infobox. I don't have a strong opinion over whether we use the image, but I imagine many will object to its use as being unnecessarily gross, when there are, uh, cleaner wounds to show pictures of. Technically a chemical burn is a wound (as is a sprained ankle), but I'd think we might want to show a more typical wound for the infobox. I'm staunchly anti-war, but I'm also anti-edit war! So I urge both parties to stop reverting each other and bring the discussion here--warring will just lead to page protection and blocks. Hopefully we can figure something out that will work for everyone. delldot ∇. 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

it's only important, whether a picture is in a good quality and in a correct licence and copyright. if anyone give it her/his own meaning is insignificant and irrelevant for its use! and better quality is the enemy of (only) good quality - in this case! Dontworry (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the picture is not the only important parameter because of a simple reason - as the image contains gore and blood making it emotional and graphical, it has to follow Wikipedia's "Wikipedia is not censored" policy. According to the policy: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." In the case of this - there are numerous suitable alternatives, moreover, the article itself contains two pictures of wounds, and it is more than enough for such article. Furthermore, the omission of the image won't make the article less informative, less relevant or less accurate.

Not only this, but the image is related to a recent conflict making it controversial, and there is no reason to include a controversial image in the article. To "Dontworry", you can't write: "the best photo against war, i've ever seen!" and then write that the connection of the picture to a controversial subject is my opinion. Furthermore, the inclusion of the picture would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy as it is not the role of Wikipedia to educate people for or against a war.

Moreover, even if you think that the image is not violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it is not the place for an image containing phosphorus injuries. As such injuries are not common, the place for an image containing them is the White phosphorus article (and the White phosphorus article has an image of phosphorus injuries). Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not able to say, whether this photo is: from "a recent conflict" or whatever or from the moon or the mars or any accident. i'm only able to say, this photo shows me several wounds on a back of a young man - not more or less - better and with more clearness, than the black and white picture before. and it's absolute unimportant - in this case - who is the perpetrator of such wounds or which weapons etc., etc. only that you can better seen that are wounds and not make-up for any movie-pictures! that's all of importance in this/such case/article. Dontworry (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

ps. that is also the reason, why i don't use such a photo for articles like "gaza conflict" or "white phosphorus" other special article about weapons or guns because: i can't be sure about that. independent of that - in my mind - if that is a picture from a war victim (i don't know!) so it is one of the best against any war. Dontworry (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much to both of you for bringing the discussion here and being so good about it. I'll toss in my $.02: I think the image is more horrifying than necessary for an infobox, and although we're not censored I believe we do have a tradition of trying to reduce the horrification quotient as best we can :P (we deal with this question all the time on articles like maggot therapy). I think Pmish11's idea of using the least upsetting images possible while still being as informative as possible is very reasonable. Dontworry's point about preferring images of better quality is also well taken, and I agree that we should definitely replace the grainy, black and white image in the infobox asap. There must already be a better-quality image of a wound on commons somewhere, we should look. But I'd recommend a more typical, simple wound for the infobox because I sort of think of it as the image that's trying to portray the typical case. That's not to say we couldn't use this image somewhere else in the body of the article if it were to be relevant to text--e.g. a section about other types of wounds (e.g. burns, stuff we don't usually think of as wounds). The image is referenced--if the guardian.co.uk is a reliable source, we can assert with confidence that the image is what it says it is. Pmish11, I think you're wise to be paying close attention to controversy and NPOV, but I don't agree that an image from a recent conflict is necessarily controversial, I think that would be too much of a hinderance on image use and would not necessarily protect NPOV anyway; I've never heard that argument proposed elsewhere on the project so I doubt it'd find much support. But it's absolutely true that we need to watch what we assert about an image and not go any further than the documented facts about it in the text or caption, and we certainly need to make sure not to use any image to support one side of a controversy over another.

So here's my suggestion: Keep the image out of the infobox for now, but replace the awful black and white one as soon as we can. Leave it out of the article for now, but reserve the possibility of placing it in the body if it becomes relevant to text in the body (e.g. a list of types of wounds). What do you all think? delldot ∇. 16:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but if you think a wound should be look nicer or more beauty or harmless, you should take wound photos from plastic surgery with pamela anderson's body. but if you think you should have any sympathy with the wounded person or also an wounded animal and the photo should give you an idea of pain that the wound cause, so you must prefer my choice (this black and white photo is over 40 years old, bad quality and not useful to show us any wounds in a real way). Dontworry (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To "Dontworry", I understand your argument: "the image is a good image = we should include it". However you forget one important principle of Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as an encyclopedia it needs to be informative and neutral. The picture with the description "wounded man" is neutral, but it is not informative (as people don't know what it is related to). While the picture with the description "Injuries from white phosphorus" is informative, but it is not relevant as phosphorus injuries are very rare, and it's place is in the article about white phosphorus. Furthermore, I don't understand why do you think that the photo should show the pain that a wound causes? There are many types of wounds each of them causing another type of pain, so you suggest including a gallery with an enormous amount of pictures? Moreover, why do you think that an encyclopedia should show the pain caused by a wound, do you think it would help people understand better what is wound? I doubt, I think that instead we should add an illustration showing a wound and explaining the parts of it.

To "delldot", I appreciate your long comment, I know that the image is from a reliable source, and I am not arguing it's nature. I am arguing the use of such image in an article that is not related to the conflict or the weapon (without any need - as it doesn't make the article more informative). In addition, I don't understand why a picture full of blood an gore explains the phenomenon better than an informative illustration. Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

a picture it-self includes ever neutrality - only what you think about it, is never neutral! that's our problem - in this case! i think, that the normal user is not very interest on (especially) "white phosphorus" wounds or "car accident" wounds etc., but it is for all people interest, which different form of (not fatal) wounds are possible in reality. and this show us that photo better than that "b+w" or other before. Dontworry (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ps. this both other pictures show us also not correct any wound, but surgical suture and scar! Dontworry (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that the picture isn't neutral(and no, not every picture is neutral - you can manipulate the brightness/contrast or use a filter in order to express an opinion). However, the context in which the picture appears is making it POV.

You have written: "i think, that the normal user is not very interest on (especially) "white phosphorus" wounds or "car accident" wounds etc.", the interest of a common user is not one of Wikipedia's priority, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has to inform the user/reader, and to help him understand the subject. Now, if you are using an image of an uncommon type of wound it won't help the readers understand the subject better. Furthermore, I think that both images are not informative enough and it would be better to look for an illustration of a wound with an explanation. Such as those[1] (we cannot use those specific images as there are not free - but I am sure that there are similar free images).

p.s. I am sorry but I won't be able to participate in the discussion during Monday and Tuesday (02.02.2009-03.02.2009). Michael--Pmish11 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

that's absolut sure, that every (not faked) picture is neutral (but not any movie!). thats's very interest in my mind: "...the interest of a common user is not one of Wikipedia's priority..." it's an important news for me, that people - which are user in commons and wikipedia - are schizophrenic personalities? and i don't think so, that people can this article better understand if we illustrade this article with any drawings like any comics - if we have pictures in a good quality for it. only, if you will show us, what schematic is going on with destruction of skin or any inside organ and in addition to that photo (the actual photo it's like a photo-painting from Gerhard Richter). or we close commons as "photo store" and forget this project: to illustrade wikipedia? Dontworry (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Periwound

New article periwound has been created, but is underlinked. Please consider integrating it here and/or wound healing ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Paper cut

If paper cut redirects here, shouldn't the page have some mention of paper cuts? (Not counting the notice at the top linking to the disambiguation page, of course.) I'm actually surprised it doesn't have its own article; maybe it should. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Research

Under this heading it said:" In humans and mice it has been shown that estrogen might affect the speed and quality of wound healing.[21]" with no indication of whether the affect was positive or negative. Checking the reference [21], I see that it is a positive affect and added that word in the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:B702:2800:E5E7:4E39:6E01:1D0C (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I plan to improve this page in by converting the page format to follow the modified format for “diseases, disorders, or syndromes”. I will also make the following additions in each section”

1.     Intro

a.      Improve wording and add citations. Update photo

2.     Classification

a.      Add section on Gustilo-Anderson classification of wounds. Expand on type of closed wounds by adding pressure injury. Add section on acute vs chronic wounds. Add citations

3.     Presentation

a.      Add section on acute wound presentation followed by updated section on chronic wound presentation. Reorder existing sections so that these are followed by “workup” and then “complications”. Add citations

4.     Treatment/Management

a.      Add section on treatment strategies based Gustilo-Anderson classification system. Update existing sections on management and include brief but more in depth explanation of dressing types (gauze, gel, hydrocolloid, hydrogels, alginates, etc). Update sections on cleaning and closure. Add citations.

5.     Epidemiology

a.      Include short section on epidemiology of wounds including most common causes of wounds (acute and chronic), how wound types differ by demographic data or other factors (age, gender, time of year, etc.). Add citations

6.     History

a.      Add brief section on how wound management has evolved over the years based on our evolving knowledge of wound healing and germ theory. Add citations Justin.taylor27 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference Retracted for claim about Alternative Medicine

Hello! The following claim is cited to a now retracted study:

"There is no good evidence that therapeutic touch is useful in healing."

Given the reason cited for the retraction is the questionable validity of the sources cited - and this is not my discipline - I wanted to point this out to see if this claim can be sourced to a different reliable source or if it should be removed. Relm (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've provided a new citation from 2021. It seems that the information was correct but probably over simplified, so I've modified the sentence to add clarity. Justin.taylor27 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Good article nominee

Justin.taylor27 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wound/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Justin.taylor27 (talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 07:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Easily readable. Could use some more wikilinks but that is easily fixable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article doesn't follow the exact layout for medical conditions but I feel that it's appropriate for the topic. The only reason I'm not passing this criteria is because the Presentation section seems oddly formatted. I believe "workup" should be its own section as it's not really a part of the presentation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Different citation styles are used throughout the article (vauthors and first/last are both used) however this could be easily fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There is unsourced statements throughout the article. I tagged the unsourced statements. Because of the amount of unsourced content, I did not manually verify each citation however I am happy to do so if the unsourced statements are fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unsourced portions.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I didn't detect any obvious plagiarism with copyvio however I would need to check individual sources to confidently say there are no copyright issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The research section is a bit off-topic and should either be expanded or removed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There is a clarification needed template on one of the images, I also feel that clustering all of the images together doesn't look great however this is a preference.
	7. Overall assessment.	Mostly failing due to the amount of unsourced material. I think the article has a lot of potential and if the unsourced sections were properly sourced and some other small changes were made it could fit criteria.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.