Talk:Group B streptococcal infection

A small suggestion to avoid possible accusations of bias

I would like to suggest that some sections of this article should be re-written. For example the section on NICE reads "However, NICE does not recommend such testing, saying, a “evidence of its clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness remains uncertain.” However, the evidence of similar screening studies clearly demonstrates the clinical effectiveness of testing pregnant women for GBS". It would be nice to cite sources here. Also the first sentence of the paragraph is somewhat redundant and seems to be setting up a "straw man". This paragraph should be phrased in more neutral terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellwstanley (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

New

New article, will add more info today.--FloNight 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

New info should indeed be added and this article should be rewritten to remove wholesale borrowing as discussed below. It has been a while since this was created so this situation should be fixed. It also might be good to move most of this information to Group B streptococcal infection as suggested previously (below) by Wouterstomp and as suggested on the Streptococcus agalactiae article. Perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease might be merged to the new article as a subheading perhaps along with the subheading Bovine group B streptococcal disease. CharlusIngus 20:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this page to Group B streptococcal infection, as group b streptococcus is the same as Streptococcus agalactiae and this page is more about the infection than about the bacteria itself. --WS 10:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio?

• This article was marked as a copyvio from [1], but it seems that CDC is a part of US federal government, thus the text is in public domain. Conscious 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is NOT generally good to just lift whole sections of text from another website and drop them in Wikipedia. Please note that the site http://www.cdc.gov/groupbstrep/general/gen_public_faq.htm is essentially the same text as is written here. This is already noted below. Although not a copyright violation because the government can't copyright anything and, hence, its legal, this makes for a poor article and is still not a good way to create a wikipedia article. From any other source this would be both illegal and poor article policy. CharlusIngus 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

GBS urinary tract infection.

This type of infection is not covered in this article. Are there sources of information about it? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is NICE?

The section of the article entitled National Institute for Clinical Excellence goes on to refer to "NICE". However, such an organization is not found within WP articles. A browser search returns no such agency, but instead elicits results for the "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" in the United Kingdom's National Healthcare System. There IS a WP article for that agency. Reference #34 points to an item from that agency. This report found on PubMed, "The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)", describes the UK's agency: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766719/pdf/v061p0ii92.pdf

So, does the "National Institute for Clinical Excellence" = "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence"? Or is it a different agency from another country, perhaps? Maybe the NIHCE underwent a name change somewhere along the way? Please provide clarification on what agency you meant. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ANS: NICE = National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This is what the author means to refer to throughout the article. National Institute for Clinical Excellence does not exist and is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.85.216 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite the wholly accurate answer. As explained in the Wikipedia article about NICE (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), that was its original name (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). They have kept the acronym "NICE" throughout the institute's existence but have twice redefined its expansion. Thus the descriptions "does not exist" and "error" are misleading, even if they are technically accurate in some instances (i.e., those referring to any NICE references since 2012, when the expansion was adopted). When you see mentions of the older names ("National Institute for Clinical Excellence" [1999-2005] and "National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence" [2005-2012]), you cannot tell whether they are errors unless you check when the document was written, what the timeframe of the cited reference is, or both. Any paper written 1999-2005, or any paper written today citing/discussing a specific reference dating to 1999-2005, would be quite correct to say "National Institute for Clinical Excellence", so "does not exist/error" is misleading by itself. But anyway, it does not matter much, because you know what entity they are talking about (i.e., NICE) regardless of which of its aliases was mentioned. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Group B streptococcal infection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708214946/http://gbss.org.uk/campaigning/awareness-month-july/ to http://gbss.org.uk/campaigning/awareness-month-july/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Group B streptococcal infection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160223064039/http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/64640/FullReport-hta13420.pdf to http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/64640/FullReport-hta13420.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124080258/http://nationalwomenshealth.adhb.govt.nz/Portals/0/Documents/Policies/Group%20B%20Strep%20Neonatal%20Disease_.pdf to http://nationalwomenshealth.adhb.govt.nz/Portals/0/Documents/Policies/Group%20B%20Strep%20Neonatal%20Disease_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Group B streptococcus vaccine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Group B streptococcal infection into Group B streptococcal infection. Klbrain (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Because an effective vaccine has yet to be developed, it is probably inappropriate to have an article for "the vaccine". Furthermore most of this content is covered in the main Group B strep article — Schistocyte ^(talk) 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The second point is certainly true: the content could be developed further. I don't necessarily agree with your first point. See AIDS vaccine, Malaria vaccine, Ebola vaccine, Zika virus vaccine, and so on. These pages provide information on vaccines in development or with low efficacy. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

One reason why a GBS vaccine page is useful: a lot of the information on the main Group B Strep infection article looks offputtingly technical. It is dense with greek medical terms and acronyms. I believe there is a need for a page that summarizes information relevant to vaccination for GBS in relatively simple terms. I concede that the page will be far more useful once an effective vaccine is developed and approved. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge The most important thing is for this article to be about the topic in question, the vaccine. The article is not about the disease generally and thus I have trimmed that. As there is not much content left would be fine in the disease article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Room for improvement of introduction.

I removed some redundant technical content about the bacterium itself from the introduction, but there is more room for improvement. The topic of this article is not yet well-reflected in the introduction, notably the screening effort of pregnant women deserves more mention. I am considering removing the reference to virulence factors in the introduction, or moving it to a sub-section, as it is not the most important information on this page. --M Killian (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Repetition of content

Added a cleanup tag because this page seems to have a lot of information scattered across it that can be found elsewhere on the page. Removal of repetitive statements and sections would improve readability of the page. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)