Talk:Erythema migrans

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

Medicine: Dermatology 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

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 Erythema migrans. 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

Red rashes or spots just around the bite in the first days are common, but do not necessarily signify lyme. Most bites have a small local reaction that subsides after a few days. I think it is highly misleading to state that erythema migrans may appear from day 1. 1-3 weeks is more correct. 193.173.252.180 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My link to a picture of erythema migrans on dnobo.com was marked as spam, but I do not understand why. It seems as though an addition to the site of a classic image from a non-profit academic site with no advertisements would be reasonable. I reviewed the wikipedia spam pages but still do not understand; I would appreciate if someone could explain to me. Thanks.Threefats 03:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long do these rashes last? Might be good to include this information. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 05:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this information would be helpful. Surely the rash doesn't cause a permanent post-inflammatory hyper-pigmentation? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology needs to be included.Curb Chain (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above condition is also sometimes termed "erythema migrans". I carried out a pubmed search with terms "Erythema migrans" and with with filters last 5 years and Review, and all of the 15 hits were about Lyme disease not this tongue disease. It is definitely a synonym, so I placed a hatenot on this page, but based on the above search I have tweaked the wording to say that erythema migrans more commonly refers to the Lyme disease skin lesion. Technically a bit of OR there, but whatever. Lesion (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the tongue parts from the article text since this article deals with the skin condition as per the hatnote. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These practitioners suggest a condition they call "chronic Lyme" (resembling [[chronic fatigue syndrome]] or [[fibromyalgia]]) exists in the absence of evidence for ''Borrelia'' infection. Their proposed treatment of patients with months or years of antibiotics is opposed by the wider medical community's [[scientific consensus]], since these treatments are potentially dangerous, are not based on diagnoses with objective evidence, and have been shown in clinical trials to be ineffective even when evidence of infection is present.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Feder HM, Johnson BJB, O'Connell S, et al. | title = A Critical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme Disease" | journal = N Engl J Med | volume = 357 | issue = 14 | pages = 1422–30 | doi = 10.1056/NEJMra072023 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17914043 }}</ref>"

Why was this deleted? Looks like it was taken out recently with no edit summary by an IP. It looked like it was sourced ... Lesion (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Erythema migrans" is now the more commonly used term [1], and there's no reason to have the title more complicated than necessary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably migrans indicates movement of some sort, possibly expansion of the rash. If this is part of the distinction between erythema migrans and other target lesions such as erythema multiforme then perhaps it should be mentioned 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.79.221 (talk)

The last picture is probably NOT erythema migrans; it shows changes from extravasation of blood which may result from any insect bite as an allergicv phenomenon and not as a consequence of borrelia infection. Bart van Herk, MD PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.228.251 (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions lymes disease a lot. I'm not removing anything but maybe that information should go on the relevant page. Such as this part: Lyme can progress to later stages without these symptoms or a rash. I mean the whole section could be a link to the lymes disease page.

I removed the image of someone's neck as it doesn't look like E migrans and it was probably added just because it's red.

I removed the part in the section mentioned above (lymes) about it not affecting the lungs (none of the erythemas affect the lungs, i dont think). Feel free to revert my changes!

I don't think the rash can move around and the other editor and poster here on the talk page might be confused...

W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and migrans might actually just mean that it spreads outwards now that I have done those edits W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert my edits to the erythema migrans page@Flighttime. You couldn't have read the page (how it is now) if you think it's in any way acceptable, and, using your own "personal opinions aren't valid sources" - the page was clearly written by someone who got a tick bite, or keeps getting conditions, and spent too much time editing the page with their own findings. I didn't reference it, but I revealed my source in the discussion on my talk page in response to your comment. In my opinion, my version of thr page is much better, and, for the record, the information I added did come from a source and not my own things that I made up except for the "right ear" part. Thr right ear being affected is something I may have read somewhere I don't know.

i tried to get more sources before the revert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science?markasread=314806602&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Abductive-20240520111000-W;ChangingUsername-20240519210200

changes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erythema_migrans&diff=prev&oldid=1225461715&title=Erythema_migrans&diffonly=1

the article could even do better with [citation needed] because, then, it at least isnt this

W;ChangingUsername (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]