Talk:Lichen planus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lichen planus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 Lichen planus.
|
In
In the section labelled "treatment," I'm concerned by the lengthy endorsement of an alleged homeopathic "cure" for lichen planus that efectively is an ad for a commercial product that is sold over the internet from the site www.lichenplanus.com. All the other listed treatments get a single line entry, with links to other Wikipedia pages where they exist. Certainly homeopathic treatments can and should be acknowledged, but isn't the inclusion of what amounts to an infomercial for one specific "brand" problematic? I have visited the site I mention, and know that in addition to promoting the product mentioned, which is extremely expensive, all other effective treatments are criticized at great length. I am new to posting on Wikipedia but felt strongly enough that I opened an account today to ask: isn't this in violation to some Wikipedia policy? Is there a mechanism for reporting instances where Wikipedia is being used as an advertising medium? Dee Lilly 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - I put up a citation tag. If there isn't a citation for this in a few days I will remove the offending passage. I personally have never seen or heard of any effective homeopathic treatments for oral lichen planus (I am a dentist not a dermatologist), but I wouldn't be averse to reading articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals on this topic. Also - please read your user page. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur Lenrodman (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Image
Are you sure that image isn't psoriasis? It doesn't really look very polygonal Lenrodman (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced information
This was added to the treatment section by an anonymous IP editor:
Raw Virgin Coconut Oil taken internally helps reduce inflammation and if used daily will keep the disease at bay.
I've moved it here because its unreferenced and makes unsupported claims. Happy for it to be moved back if suitable references can be provided. Mattopaedia Say G'Day!</fo-nt> 02:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Lichen planus parent article
- Sounds reasonable. Let's see how the page looks after the merge. talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
LayoutI've tweaked the layout so it is less of confusing. The subtypes that were merged are essentially forms of cutaneous lichen planus, so I put them in that section. Could do with consistent layout.
The mucosal lichen planus section could do with more details about conjunctival, nasal, otic, bladder involvement, etc but struggling to find MEDRS compliant sources.
I have put "genital lichen planus" in the mucosal section, but I think that the implication is that it can occur on the genital skin as well.
I put "nail lichen planus" in the skin LP section, for want of somewhere better to put it.
Left
oral lichen planus unmerged, with rationale that I plan to expand that article a lot soon, so it might benefit with its own page which links back to this rather than break the flow of this parent page, but I'm happy to listen to other opinions. Lesion (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)]
- Support. What do you think about a rename to mucosal lichen planus? I'm guessing as by affecting the mucosal LPs share a similar pathophysiology. Just floating an idea here, feel free to shoot it down.talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Does scalp LP = follicular LP? This source suggests not necessarily.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008038/full Lesion (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
]
- Wow, this article is looking much better! Your cutaneous/mucosal division is very easy to understand. It's starting to look good. No, I don't believe they're the same, although they certainly overlap - I'll reinstate the morphology/site divide to make that clear.talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)]
Classification Changes. I've moved a lot of the data on classifications to different sections.
- Lichenoid reactions are those with a known trigger, so this trigger could be discussed in the causes section.
- A lot of the data about all the different sites in the classification section refer to how the rash presents in each section - this can be discussed more in the symptoms section with a simpler presentation as having a mucosal/cutaneous divide.
- Also I think that 'palmar lichen planus' and those sort of conditions are quite clearly 'lichen planus' and secondarily 'cutaneous' affecting the palm, so I think that this move is acceptable and that the first word (palmar, linear) etc. can be treated like an adjective.
- The article looks messier now, but I think it's more efficiently organised and certainly more contentful.
Kind Regards
talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)]
OK. I'm going to leave the article in this sorry state, apologies; will continue tomorrow. Would value your input on the changes.
talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)]
MergeA vast array of lichen-planus articles are being proposed to be merged. These articles all have between 2-3 sentences and will be merged into this main article with no objection. Articles include:
- Annular lichen planus
- talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
Morphology stubs:
- Hypertrophic lichen planus
- Atrophic lichen planus
- Vesiculobullous lichen planus
- Ulcerative lichen planus
- Follicular lichen planus
- Actinic lichen planus
- talk) 09:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
Special forms
- Drug-induced lichen planus
- Lupus erythematosus-lichen planus overlap syndrome
- Lichen planus pemphigoides
- Keratosis lichenoides chronica
- Lichenoid reaction of graft-versus-host disease
- Lichenoid keratosis
- talk) 09:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
- All the "special forms" are now under the lichenoid reactions section. Is this factually accurate, I'm not sure for some of them... It also occurred to me that if lichenoid reactions are to be dealt with in this page, most of the content will be put into the causes section, since lichenoid reactions have identifiable causes. This would be OK with me since we don't have a very long causes section currently, by virtue of LP being essentially idiopathic. Lesion (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oral lichen planusThis appears to be one of the last lichen-planus articles not merged here. I propose a merge because:
- The ICD codes are the same, so these are by at least one international standard recognised as the same entity.
- The treatment remains the same
- The differences appear to relate to typical presentation and prognosis, which can be covered here.
- It is better to have a more in-depth explanation of pathology on this article than separate it into two, as the pathology is the same. talk) 10:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)]
Cleanup issuesIt is my understanding that any editor (even those who have extensively been involved in editing the article) are free to change the class of articles if they see fit up to B grade, but a GA status requires a formal GA review...
Care is needed with choosing sources. Please see WP:MEDDATE by a significant margin. The old source was 1960s, so at least is better, but we should aim not to include any source that is much older than 5 years. Not an absolute rule, but I think the majority of people would interpret 1985 as too old a source... This is for the list of histopathologic features. I will have a look in a modern oral pathology textbook and a dermatology textbook for these classically described features...most textbooks would likely list them. Note that MEDRS may not necessarily apply to the history section, after all it is natural to use older sources here. Similarly for society and culture section.
Care is needed when altering content that previous sources are supporting. Please see WP:INTEGRITY. E.g. the source Kerawala 2010. What the original source actually says is this: "Small risk of malignant change especially if erosive". In a previous version of the article, the content "Atrophic/erosive lichen planus is associated with a small risk of malignant transformation,[26] " was supported by Kerawala 2010. The same source has now been used to support the following content: "A biopsy can be used to rule out conditions that may resemble lichen planus, and can pick up any secondary malignancies. [25]" As far as I can see, the kerawala source does not support this content at all?
In the differential diagnosis section, note that "Candida" is not a diagnosis. Suggest "Oral candidiasis".
In the desire to see consistent referencing technique, I did look this up in the end. Per WP:CITEFOOT, reference tags should go immediately after punctuation with no space. As if a sign, a bot fixed this error on one of the pages on my watchlist today, which triggered me to look up the policy.
Aside from these minor points, article is looking better, agree. talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)]
- OK. I've fixed all the spaces, removed the unsourced treatments for oral candidiasis, candida -> candidiasis, and upgraded to B class. I won't be making any further thorough edits of this article, and it was a pleasure to edit collaboratively with you. talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)]
granuloma annulare a type of lichen planus?
- From my understanding they are distinct conditions. --talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)]
Reverted edit on treatment
LayoutI've tweaked the layout so it is less of confusing. The subtypes that were merged are essentially forms of cutaneous lichen planus, so I put them in that section. Could do with consistent layout.
The mucosal lichen planus section could do with more details about conjunctival, nasal, otic, bladder involvement, etc but struggling to find MEDRS compliant sources.
I have put "genital lichen planus" in the mucosal section, but I think that the implication is that it can occur on the genital skin as well.
I put "nail lichen planus" in the skin LP section, for want of somewhere better to put it.
Left
- Support. What do you think about a rename to mucosal lichen planus? I'm guessing as by affecting the mucosal LPs share a similar pathophysiology. Just floating an idea here, feel free to shoot it down.talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)]
Does scalp LP = follicular LP? This source suggests not necessarily.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008038/full Lesion (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, this article is looking much better! Your cutaneous/mucosal division is very easy to understand. It's starting to look good. No, I don't believe they're the same, although they certainly overlap - I'll reinstate the morphology/site divide to make that clear.talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)]
Classification Changes. I've moved a lot of the data on classifications to different sections.
- Lichenoid reactions are those with a known trigger, so this trigger could be discussed in the causes section.
- A lot of the data about all the different sites in the classification section refer to how the rash presents in each section - this can be discussed more in the symptoms section with a simpler presentation as having a mucosal/cutaneous divide.
- Also I think that 'palmar lichen planus' and those sort of conditions are quite clearly 'lichen planus' and secondarily 'cutaneous' affecting the palm, so I think that this move is acceptable and that the first word (palmar, linear) etc. can be treated like an adjective.
- The article looks messier now, but I think it's more efficiently organised and certainly more contentful.
Kind Regards
OK. I'm going to leave the article in this sorry state, apologies; will continue tomorrow. Would value your input on the changes.
MergeA vast array of lichen-planus articles are being proposed to be merged. These articles all have between 2-3 sentences and will be merged into this main article with no objection. Articles include:
- Annular lichen planus
- talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
Morphology stubs:
- Hypertrophic lichen planus
- Atrophic lichen planus
- Vesiculobullous lichen planus
- Ulcerative lichen planus
- Follicular lichen planus
- Actinic lichen planus
- talk) 09:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
Special forms
- Drug-induced lichen planus
- Lupus erythematosus-lichen planus overlap syndrome
- Lichen planus pemphigoides
- Keratosis lichenoides chronica
- Lichenoid reaction of graft-versus-host disease
- Lichenoid keratosis
- talk) 09:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
- All the "special forms" are now under the lichenoid reactions section. Is this factually accurate, I'm not sure for some of them... It also occurred to me that if lichenoid reactions are to be dealt with in this page, most of the content will be put into the causes section, since lichenoid reactions have identifiable causes. This would be OK with me since we don't have a very long causes section currently, by virtue of LP being essentially idiopathic. Lesion (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oral lichen planusThis appears to be one of the last lichen-planus articles not merged here. I propose a merge because:
- The ICD codes are the same, so these are by at least one international standard recognised as the same entity.
- The treatment remains the same
- The differences appear to relate to typical presentation and prognosis, which can be covered here.
- It is better to have a more in-depth explanation of pathology on this article than separate it into two, as the pathology is the same. talk) 10:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)]
Cleanup issuesIt is my understanding that any editor (even those who have extensively been involved in editing the article) are free to change the class of articles if they see fit up to B grade, but a GA status requires a formal GA review...
Care is needed with choosing sources. Please see WP:MEDDATE by a significant margin. The old source was 1960s, so at least is better, but we should aim not to include any source that is much older than 5 years. Not an absolute rule, but I think the majority of people would interpret 1985 as too old a source... This is for the list of histopathologic features. I will have a look in a modern oral pathology textbook and a dermatology textbook for these classically described features...most textbooks would likely list them. Note that MEDRS may not necessarily apply to the history section, after all it is natural to use older sources here. Similarly for society and culture section.
Care is needed when altering content that previous sources are supporting. Please see WP:INTEGRITY. E.g. the source Kerawala 2010. What the original source actually says is this: "Small risk of malignant change especially if erosive". In a previous version of the article, the content "Atrophic/erosive lichen planus is associated with a small risk of malignant transformation,[26] " was supported by Kerawala 2010. The same source has now been used to support the following content: "A biopsy can be used to rule out conditions that may resemble lichen planus, and can pick up any secondary malignancies. [25]" As far as I can see, the kerawala source does not support this content at all?
In the differential diagnosis section, note that "Candida" is not a diagnosis. Suggest "Oral candidiasis".
In the desire to see consistent referencing technique, I did look this up in the end. Per WP:CITEFOOT, reference tags should go immediately after punctuation with no space. As if a sign, a bot fixed this error on one of the pages on my watchlist today, which triggered me to look up the policy.
Aside from these minor points, article is looking better, agree. talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)]
- OK. I've fixed all the spaces, removed the unsourced treatments for oral candidiasis, candida -> candidiasis, and upgraded to B class. I won't be making any further thorough edits of this article, and it was a pleasure to edit collaboratively with you. talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)]
granuloma annulare a type of lichen planus?
- From my understanding they are distinct conditions. --talk) 03:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)]
Reverted edit on treatment
- Hypertrophic lichen planus
- Atrophic lichen planus
- Vesiculobullous lichen planus
- Ulcerative lichen planus
- Follicular lichen planus
- Actinic lichen planus
- talk) 09:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
Special forms
- Drug-induced lichen planus
- Lupus erythematosus-lichen planus overlap syndrome
- Lichen planus pemphigoides
- Keratosis lichenoides chronica
- Lichenoid reaction of graft-versus-host disease
- Lichenoid keratosis
- talk) 09:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)]
- All the "special forms" are now under the lichenoid reactions section. Is this factually accurate, I'm not sure for some of them... It also occurred to me that if lichenoid reactions are to be dealt with in this page, most of the content will be put into the causes section, since lichenoid reactions have identifiable causes. This would be OK with me since we don't have a very long causes section currently, by virtue of LP being essentially idiopathic. Lesion (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup issuesIt is my understanding that any editor (even those who have extensively been involved in editing the article) are free to change the class of articles if they see fit up to B grade, but a GA status requires a formal GA review...
- OK. I've fixed all the spaces, removed the unsourced treatments for oral candidiasis, candida -> candidiasis, and upgraded to B class. I won't be making any further thorough edits of this article, and it was a pleasure to edit collaboratively with you. talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)]