Talk:Sputum

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Sputum. 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

Spanish link is not right, it does not go to "Esputo" (Sputum) but to "Expectorar" (Spitting). I tried to fix it but I couldn´t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.231.131.49 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't yet know the correct way to add references. If someone else wants to fix this before I do, the story about Katie Couric slapping a colleague for saying "sputum" is in this AP article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900613.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/entertainmentnews

All references to this should be removed as the article is no longer a valid link.NH

I'm sure there are other languages of this article, for example, Chinese... http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%97%B0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.166.224 (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is a stub. How can experts be drawn here to edit this page? ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be improved by adding photos, (yes,yes 'icky') I ask because I have bronchitis at least a couple of times a year, and am fortunate enough to have miserable allergies while living in a desert climate-plenty of opportunties to catch the perfect shot. Also, should the phenomena of different infectious organisms causing different colors be added; and should this have a link to 'biofilm'? If these were troll-like comments-I apologize. Newbie: Bite if you must, but my ears are tender!!!!!!!LeeRamsey (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a good digital photo of your sputum and upload it. Then consider yourself the author of the work. H Padleckas (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has done it already. Here is a photo called Image:Phlegm.jpg :

I was directed here from the article on "Phlegm." That article states that sputum is phlegm that has been expectorated, and also that mucus and phlegm are not the same thing. This article begins by stating that sputum is mucus. There is a contradiction here. 167.206.122.66 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if this has been fixed. H Padleckas (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence states that "sputum is mucus that is coughed up," but the phlegm page states that "Once phlegm has been expectorated by a cough it becomes sputum" and that "Contrary to popular misconception and misuse, mucus and phlegm are not always the same." This makes me think the first line should state that "sputum is phlegm that is coughed up." PSimeon (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the photo is not appearing in the template? --Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to properly quote a copyrighted work (the text was cited, but not properly quoted despite being word for word from the cite). While the text is useful, I suspect it seems really odd being quoted like such (though I believe not properly quoting it counts as plagiarism) and I want to suggest that it is re-worded so that it does not need to be a quote, but also does not plagiarize the cited text. I would do this myself, however I lack sufficient knowledge on the topic to feel comfortable making the change (though it seems simple enough that I could). Of course, if the quote is in fact appropriate, then I suspect it is fine as is. Thanks! Dckirker (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article lists a set of possible colors of sputum, and every color listed is presented as being symptomatic of some problem. On the other hand, the article on phlegm states that "The body naturally produces one US quart (0.95 litres) of phlegm every day to capture and clear substances in the air and bacteria from the nose and throat" and "Once phlegm has been expectorated by a cough, it becomes sputum". If these latter statements are accurate, it might be responsible to outline what colors of sputum are *not* particularly concerning in and of themselves - or under what other conditions the presence of sputum need not be a source of concern. Right now, the article reads like a hypochondriac's dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.102.222 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 5 years what do i do tell me some advace 102.128.131.250 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 223.225.51.202 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]