Talk:Infectious mononucleosis

Strep throat.

Strep throat is another differential.

If pt. has both, it complicates treatment, antibiotics may be indicated, but "Patients with EBV infectious mononucleosis who have positive throat cultures for group A streptococci should not be treated because this represents colonization rather than infection (see Workup)." http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/222040-medication

Disease rate

Article says that "About 45 out of 100,000 people develop mono each year in the United States" and that "Nearly 95% of people have been infected by the time they are adults." These two rates don't make sense, 95% by adulthood is over 5,000 per 100,000 each year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.106.142 (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed the wording a bit. The 45/100k is for infectious mono while the 95% covers all degrees of EBV infection.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

About 45 out of 100,000 people develop mono as a disease, meaning they are symptomatic and seek medical care. The fact that 95% of people have been infected with mono by the time they are adults was a complete surprise when this was first discovered (based on testing of all pregnant women in one study, with the assumption that prevalence of women is similar to men). This led to the conclusion that the vast majority of infection with the virus that causes mono (which is EBV) is asymptomatic. That is, most people catch the virus without getting sick but forever remaining immune to it afterwards, while a minority actually get sick from the virus. So this is how you can resolve the paradox of both the above facts.--Beezer137 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Often we structure the lead in the same order as the body of the text. Thus moved society and culture stuff and history to the 4th paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Glandular fever - Mono is an exclusive Americanism.

In the majority of the English-speaking world - and, for that matter, the rest of the world as well - this is colloquially known exclusively as glandular fever. The term Mono, and Mononucleosis, is exclusive to the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, and is almost completely unknown outside of those countries. Shouldn't the page reflect this, rather than pretending the reverse is true? Khardankov (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Immunity?

Do you, or most people, get immune for life, or for a period of time, once you've had the infection? Is it the same whether you've been symptomatic or not? Maybe the article answers those questions, but I haven't found the answers - and I think it should answer them.--Nø (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2022 (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:Infectious mononucleosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femke (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Konstantina. Thank you very much for improving this article and nominating it for GA. I see you're relatively new to Wikipedia editing. You may not yet be aware of our guidance on what sources Wikipedia prefers in medical articles, so I advise you to take a quick look there. Most importantly, medical sources should typically be secondary sources and relatively new sources. For a big topic like this, there should usually be reviews available published in the last five years. Older reviews might be outdated and we can't ascertain that they are correct without checking more recent sources. A quick glance at the article reveals that quite a few sources are older than five years old. For instance:

• The source in the lead that says there is promising vaccine research stems from 2007. Is this research still considered promising? Or was it a dead end?
• Thus current evidence still suggest the 33 data 49 day between affections and symptom presentation? The source stems from 2001.
• You added a 1978 source about other causes of infectious mononucleosis. Are they still classified as infectious mononucleosis? And is this percentage still true?
• I believe there is now much stronger evidence linking EBV to multiple sclerosis. You probably want to replace the 2010 source with a newer review.
• the source sites that there is a 5% chance of complication. However our article about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome says 8% to 15% of people develop this syndrome after infectious mononucleosis.

Another GA requirement is broadness. You may want to improve the section in the pathophysiology. It currently talks a bit about the differential diagnosis, which is better placed at the differential diagnosis section, it doesn't talk too much about the pathophysiology. For instance, according to this summary source, it spreads via the lymphic system, which we dont quite mention.

All in all, the article requires quite some work before it meets the GA criteria. I think the best way forward is for me to fail this nomination for now. If you would like some mentoring and additional tips on how to improve medical articles, my talk page is always open. Another great place to meet people But loads of experience editing medical articles is at The WikiProject Medicine. You are free to re-nominate when you've addressed the comments, and updated the article to use better sourcing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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.