Talk:Cachexia

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-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 Cachexia.

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

Fundamental Contradiction

The preamble to this article notes that Cachexia is formally defined as "loss of body mass that cannot be reversed nutritionally." The 'Disease Settings' section observes "In most cases cachexia can be reversed with just eating" which flatly contradicts the definition given, and is factually incorrect. Please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.31.133 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed. Thanks! Pattkait (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difference of opinion

We have a serious problem here: 1. cachexia IS NOT a disease, it is a SYMPTOM 2. you do not have to be anorectic to be cachectic To fix such a huge mistake I would have to wirte the article from the very begining and unfortunatelly I have not very time to spare. I just wonder who wrote it????!!!! Myga 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to this page

Cachexia is a "wasting" syndrome. Advanced cancer and HIV can lead to cachexia. TNFalpha, an inflammatory cytokine, is upregulated in cancer patients suffering from cachexia. Patients may be treated with Megestrol, an appetite stiumulant. Treatment is largely supportive, not curative.

There appears to be a contradiction on this page - 'resulting in muscle atrophy. Resulting in large muscle gains.' Surely that's opposite? Prettyinpink88 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines on Contrast Media (version 7.0): a clinical feature or result of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) is Cachexia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.173.54.11 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cachexia versus wasting

Is there, in fact, any difference between cachexia and wasting, other than one is a technical term and the other is widely understood? Should the cachexia and wasting articles be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.17.190 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to ask the same question. Is there anything in the Wasting article that would not be relevant here?--Egmonster (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Registered Dietitian - Prevents Cachexia, Saves Lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.85.26 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting could be due to straightforward malnutrition (e.g., due to long-term poverty) or any cause; cachexia, as I understand it, is a specific form of wasting with an immunological pathogenesis. Unlike some other forms of wasting, cachexia cannot be relieved solely by eating a healthy diet.

However, Wasting syndrome appears to be the same as Cachexia, so that should probably be merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I don't want to mess up your most excellent webpage, but I have a teenytiny request.

Could someone put spaces between the syllables in the phonetic pronunciation? In my mind, I applied old-school "put the accent mark at the END of the accented syllable" and couldn't figure out the pronunciation.

I finally figured out we're supposed to put the accent mark at the BEGINNING of the accented syllable.

Even though it is done correctly in this article, help out us children of the 60s and put spaces between the syllables so we notice immediately which the accented syllable is! Thanks, and sorry to be a nuisance. Theresavalek (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit

@Doc James: Can you go over my recent content edition in this edit and simplify parts that you think are too technical? Please don't dumb it down with a loss of accuracy/specificity; remember, this isn't the lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted a bit[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]