Talk:Clostridioides difficile infection

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flippinbowie, Rebeccathao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are "Hall and O'Toole"

Could someone please supply information on who these people are "Hall and O'Toole". They apparently discovered this particular organism in 1935 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.237.254 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

you are correct, there should be a reference for an article written in 1935. however It does not matter: it will not be digital so having or not having that reference actually makes no difference as nobody will go looking for the paper.

Missed it. it is there --Squidonius (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Google's transcription project (or some other) have made this old paper documents available. I also think if someone has the paper document to use as RS, Wikipedia policy allows the use. I've seen paper sources in Wikipedia Articles elsewhere, so I know it can be done, I just don't know how.Tym Whittier (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pharmacology

By the way, pharmacology means the effect of the antibiotic on the pathogen. What is important to know in an infection is not the pharmacology; it is which antibiotic will be efficient, the dosage, duration of treatment, contraindications, second and third-line therapies, treatment of relapses, and in the case of C.diff, prophylaxis with probiotics is being tried in almost every hospital in Quebec which had the resistant strain. All this info is called pharmacotherapy. I'm a student in third year in pharmacy, Montreal, Canada, and my reference is the 2005 edition of DiPiro's Pharmacotherapy, the pharmacists' bible.

Reclassified as Clostridioides difficile?

Hasn't Clostridium difficile been reclassified as Clostridioides difficile?2601:281:8080:670:90E1:7B1D:618A:3001 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a ref? The common name has not changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It has definitively been renamed Clostridioides difficile. The main C. diff page has been renamed accordingly and has sources to back this up. 8.30.81.2 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah this article needs to be moved/renamed and updated for sure. Umimmak (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So the question is has the common name changed? Should have a move discussion at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean it's still C. difficile, CDI, C-dif, etc. It's just inaccurate to continue calling the bacterium Clostridium difficile as if that's its current name. Umimmak (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Umimmak; the common name isn't Clostridium difficile, it's the spoken abbreviation C-diff (various spellings; "C-diff" is merely my personal favorite). The new scientific name Clostridioides difficile appears to have been chosen specifically to ensure that the common name C-diff would continue to abbreviate the correct scientific name. UpToDate has already started calling the organism "Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile".

If Wikipedia article titles referencing this organism are to use its common name, then this one (for example) should be renamed "C-diff infection". Does anyone really favor that? On the other hand, if they are to use its scientific name, then this one (for example) should be renamed "Clostridioides difficile infection". In neither case is it appropriate to continue using an obsolete scientific name in article titles. Analogy: Apatosaurus, not Brontosaurus (and not "bronto" either).

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay added the ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285209 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: you also reverted this edit of mine without any explanation, as well as the changes in the section on pronunciation to reflect that that is no longer the present combination... I don't want to edit war with you over this so I'll assume you'll fix those as well. Umimmak (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Umimmak I have added a ref for that statement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay so you have found a source, but it was transferred to Clostridium in 1938, not in the 1970s. Umimmak (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Prévot, A.-R. (1938). "Études de systématique bactérienne. IV. Critique de la conception actuelle du genre Clostridium". Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. 61 (1): 84. He got the gender wrong so he wrote Cl. difficilis, but it was he who transferred it to that genus, see, e.g., p. 771 of Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology 2nd ed., Vol 3. among many others who refer to Clostridium difficile (Hall & O'Toole 1935) Prevot 1938. Not sure what the source you added to is thinking of, and it's suspicious it makes a claim about a taxonomic act in the 1970s without any reference to who changed its combination or in what publication... Umimmak (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: or whoever else can move titles, this should really be at Clostridioides difficile inection, not Clostridioides difficile Infection as per title conventions, no? Umimmak (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes thanks. Moved Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)