Talk:Sore throat

Stub-classify or redirect to "Acute pharyngitis"

This article is really of stub length and gives very little info. It also is essentially an article on the layman's term for "pharyngitis" and should probably have its text deleted and turned into a redirect to "Acute pharyngitis." I cede that it is POSSIBLE to have a sore throat from a non-viral/non-bacterial cause - throat cancer or chemical/physical abrasion - but this is not what people are likely thinking about when they visit this page, nor does this article have any interesting info on these other causes. user:npatchett (medical student) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.121 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cures

One way to find a cure from a sore throat is to make up some mint tea, add a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar, 1/4 cup of sugar(less is okay), a teaspoon and a half of lemon juice, one garlic clove chopped up, and a few shakes of cayenne pepper. It sounds gross, but it's actually pretty good! It helps A LOT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.56.224 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in favor of US

When I was reading this, a sentence said "In the United States there are about 2.4 million emergency department visits with throat-related complaints per year." English Wikipedia isn't for just the US. English Wikipedia is for Britan, Canada, Australia and all other English speaking countries out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McBenjamin (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Steroids should not be used to treat sore throat pain

This article almost killed me. I had strep and was (I found out later was not optimal) given amoxicillin- the severe pain of sore throat persisted- I could not eat or drink and had to spit into a cup due to the horrific pain. Yet upon return to the doctor (one of these walk-in types) I tested negative for sore throat. Doc said it was just viral. For days even after antibiotic treatment horrific terrible throat pain persisted and continued to test negatived for strep. So I asked for steroids based on this article for the pain. He gave me prednisone. The sore throat pain slightly ameliorated but eventually worsened again. When I finished 5 days of prednisone, I called the doc for more because it helped slightly with the pain (though still unbearable - could not swallow saiva, eat or drink). Luckily he was out and would not give me more steroids - he could not see me for 2 days. I was going to take some more steroids I had in the house from an old prescription because the pain was so bad. Note it was late night, no doctors seemed to be available,luckily found an ENT specialist who sees people in the late hours of the night. He took one look at me- and said I had a very serious Peritonsillar abscess that had to be immediately drained. ENT said if I had continued to take the steroids and not treat properly, I would have likely died soon. Steroid makes the infection worse and reduces immunity. ENT specialist said clearly steroids should not be taken for pain of strep/sore throat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.133.89 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I also had similar reaction now when I was reading the article as why steroid is mentioned here that too in the second line. It seems that it is beacuse of the refernce, this information is not removed. However, I feel that it needs to be removed and I am removing the steroid related section. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not secondary sources

Why did you state they weren't secondary sources when they were exactly that? What is a secondary source in your book then?

The NHS tip/comment is from a respectable site but it's from an unnamed author and not the NHS. The comment is pretty freeform in its language and has some claims of its own that it doesn't substantiate with sources. The source it heartily uses are tabloids like Daily Mail. It itself also states that hot or cold drinks are recommended, to preferance. I strongly also oppose taking the fairly disparaging statement of old wives tale as the first thing in the paragraph in our article. If there exist studies that support it, it's not a myth. They are limited, but they exist. I think the author of the study himself stated he was surprised how little research there is about any of this.

Also, I'm trying to work towards a compromise. But it needs to be both ways, I don't see how deleting everything I added, the sources as well and then adding that disparaging remark as the first thing is working towards anything. If we could at least not add remarks like that.

If you want to add zingers, how about adding this quote from Muir Gray: "Yet again my mother is proved right." If you only add the old wives tale part, it's not portraying the comment as it is because it had statements like this at the end as well. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've pointed you at the relevant policy and the explanatory essay WP:WHYMEDRS, which explain it well. Pretty much anything published by the NHS is reliable, and especially for unremarkable observations. PMID 24558011 is a randomized controlled trial - an experiment - a piece of primary research. Continuing to insert unreliable sources here is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you haven't pointed anything in specific out. And it's not by the NHS, like I pointed out. You now only point out PMID 24558011 as problematic, but ignore the other study. Do you have no reason to remove the other study but personal, so you don't wish to mention it now? Even PMID 24558011 is used for the review of the study about hot drinks, and not for its own experiment. You're also the most disruptive editor, brutally reverting by simply pointing out Wikipedia guidelines or not even doing that. My second edit was completely different and used secondary sources. My third edit or the third version incorporated your source with heavy criticism of mine. I'm trying to compromise to my best and this is clearly not disruptive editing. But you're not responding to my questions and you're clearly not willing to talk. You came to my talk to post an edit-warring warning. You're clearly exhibiting wikilawyering and edit-warring. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

PMID 30429687 is also a primary source. I have not the time to mentor you - please read and understand the WP:PAGs I have linked to. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, it reviews other studies related to sore throat threatment. That is what a secondary source does. You seem to be covering your ears and loudly singing lalala. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Although unfinished, WP:MEDFAQ may also be informative. If you can bring reliable sources to the table then that would be a useful starting point for discussions. Trying to base medical content on unreliable sources is a waste of your time and mine. In general, something is a "review" if PUBMED classifies it as such. Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be acting on principles written nowhere and never pointed out in specific by you. The wikipages you constantly point out state that primary sources can be accepted as well. Nowhere do they state that a source has to be 100% about the issue at hand and that it's not enough when it dedicates a paragraph to talking about a study that concerns the matter at hand. You make up rules in your head. You read sources however you want and that Muir statement might as well not exist in your eyes. ~ Because of this, anything I write has no result. I had to point out the difficulty I'm having discussing this with the other editor. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You can always raise a source at WT:MED if you dispute its classification. The community consensus on our sourcing requirements for health claims is solid, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, count 32 hours from now and you'll see a report there as sure as the midnight lights on a summer's eve at the pier of Copenhagen. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)