Shock (circulatory) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Keo1274. Peer reviewers:
Naharris2.
mental shock is one type of medical shock. Post-traumatic is by definition, post-traumatic. not the same thing, is it? Also, that article doesn't use the word 'shock' once. --
Tarquin16:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
If you do not refer to PTSD, what exactly do you mean? And in what Medical Textbook (Cecil, Harrison, Oxford Textbook of Medicine, et cetera) can I find this "mental shock?" As far as I know "shock" in medicine only refers to what this article discusses, although the popular use (this is not the same as what doctors use) is limited to the psychological disorder.Nomen Nescio17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I agree with Tarquin – the word "shock" is used in a medical context to describe the body's physical reaction to immediate psychological stress. For example, you witness a terrible car accident. Over the course of the following two or three hours, you vomit several times and feel faint. This would be called "shock", and it has nothing to do with post-traumatic stress disorder. Witnesses to horrific events are often said to "have sustained no injury, but were treated for shock". Clearly this is a MAJOR medical usage of the term that should be included in the article! --
Ecksemmess14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm confused about the topic of shock. A friend of mine was hit by a car a few years back, and she told me that when she was 'in shock' she couldn't feel any pain and was having fun fiddling around with her broken pinky. That's about all she could tell me, but I want to know more. I looked here, but this article has no mention of it. The disambig page led to PTSD, but I don't think that's quite it either. In short, I agree with Ecksemmess that another section should be added. This is supposed to be a friggin' encyclopedia! If it is a major medical term, why isn't it explained or at least mentioned?
I would further like to point out that when you type "define:shock" into Google the very first definition is:
the feeling of distress and disbelief that you have when something bad happens accidentally;"his mother's death left him in a daze"; "he was numb with shock"
Very good, but this is NOT! clinical shock, just as it isn't an electrical shock. The disambiguation link is there for this very reason, if you feel a page on Shock (psychological) is required, feel free. Also just looked through the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine, and the only reference to shock is the clinical shock discussed here. So as a "major medical term" not being included in the major publication doctors here in Britain use is surely an indication that the medical fraternity do not use shock in this way.
Panthro01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I would like to remind all editors that shock is divided in FOUR types, as the article says. It would be helpfull if we keep all of these forms of shock and not delete the fourth: obstruction.Nomen Nescio00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Is this POV or do you have verifiable sources as all the books and journals I have read state only three. I will leave it for now, but remove it unless you provide the said sources. Thanks.
Panthro19:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Another point.. for obstructive shock Google has 864 hits. These factors stated CAUSE shock.. the same way that haemorrhagic shock is not a type in itself but part of hypovolaemic shock.
But I am open to discussion on the matter.
Panthro19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
If you wrap quotations around it - you will get the 800 odds... simply putting onstructive shock means google looks for "obstructive" and "shock". 893 for google.com, 899 for google.co.uk which compares to 146,000 for hypovolemic and 1,000,000+ for septic shock. I understand that this is not evidence per se, but it is interesting
Even so, you have proven yourself the term exists (
eMedicine is a very good site) and was not invented by me.Nomen Nescio19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
It is quite incorrect to state that distibutive shock is similar to hypovolaemia, undoubtedly they will lead on to hypovolaemia due to the compensatory mechanisms affecting the body.
Consider this: take a 1 liter bottle, fill it with water and you will have 1 liter of water with no room to spare. Then take a 2 liter bottle and empty the original 1 liter bottle into it. If I am not mistaken we will have 1 liter of water in a 2 liter bottle. Now, the amount of water is insufficient to fill the bottle, although we have not changed the volume of water. We change the volume the bottle can take and this is exactly what happens in distributive shock. By vasodilatation the volume our bloodvessels can take increases, but the volume of blood remains the same. Just as in the bottles there is a mismatch of volume and relative to the new volume of circulation there is not enough blood: hence relative hypovolemia!Nomen Nescio19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I assume you deleted the above again on a whim of one piece of evidence.
Ascites - look it up if you don't know what it is. This is a massive fluid shift into the abdomen - occasionally called "third shifting".
Re: intestibal obstuction and paralytic ileus - this causes the accumulation of fluid in the bowel (it isn't getting absorbed vy the villi) - as a result there is dehydration and deranged electrolytes. Usually it is also results in vomiting - all leading to a decrease in circulating volume and therefore HYPOVOLAEMIA.
Do not revert something on a whim simply because you don't understand... a good editor will look up verifiable sources and then initiate a discussion.
I am sorry that some of your good changes to the previous revert have been removed - I will try to add them in.....
Panthro19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh and another thing, if you so strongly support the four shock types idea, then why have you stated under the treatment for obstructive shock
" fluid deficit is medically compensated by intravenous resuscitation"
First of all you might consider a less aggressive tone. For a student nurse to make such bold statements without having read one medical
textbook on the subject is rather presumptuous.
How do you know I havent read "medical" textbooks? Who is being presumptive now?
I will gladly put the references in of the medical, pathophysiological, pathological textbooks and journal articles which state three types of shock.
Panthro18:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Second, as to why I insist on four types is because that is what doctors have agreed upon.
Third, "An internal source may be
haemorrhage,
intestinal obstruction,
paralytic bowel or gross
ascites." is incorrect.
Ileus leads to extravasation of fluid and dehydration, but seldom, if ever, to distributive shock.
Remember hypovolaemia is not equivalent to shock. Why ascites leads to distributive shock entirely escapes me. Can you explain the mechanism? Ascites developes over time and many patients (
cirrhosis,
lymphoma or other malignancy) are not acutely ill.
The ICU Book by Marino is a succinct book used a reference by those unable/unwilling to buy the Irwin and Rippe
3 You surely have looked in textbooks, however, since the ones I mention are the primary, if not only, references among doctors for any problem in internal medicine, I would suggest we adopt whatever these textbooks provide as definition and forms of shock.
4 Although you are correct in pointing out you referred to hypovolaemic shock, this still does not alter the fact that your assertions are incorrect. Both
ileus and
ascites do not present an acute and massive shift of fluid into the extravasal space. Hence they will cause dehydration (decrease of intravascular volume) but not shock.
5 Apologies accepted and do continue editing. But please consider your literature may not present an accurate and comprehensive discussion on medical conditions. Feel free to read about the conditions that are listed as examples of the types of shock.Nomen Nescio20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Continuing with the idea of the listed literature possibly not being accurate or comprehensive, note that pre-hospital care providers in the US are taught that there are five, six, even seven types of shock:
- Hypovolemic
- Cardiogenic
- Neurogenic
- Psychogenic (sometimes considered a subset of Neurogenic shock)
- Respiratory Insufficiency (not described in Mosby's Paramedic Textbook)
- Anaphylactic
- Septic
(See, e.g., Emergency Care and Transportation of the Sick and Injured, 9th Ed. & Mosby's Paramedic Textbook, 2d Ed.)
As always, the point of the article needs to be that regardless of cause, shock is a lack of tissue perfusion which, left untreated, will cause the patient's death, and therefore constitutes a true medical emergency. Then, perhaps, the various "causes" of shock can be described, along with their possible treatments.
Aramis125017:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Undoubtedly there are sources using a different classification. Nevertheless, for obvious reasons, I think we should limit ourselves to
medical literature since that is the standard on which all other healthcare workers' principles are based. Second, if you look at the mechanisms, contrary to the actual cause, you will find that the subtypes this article describes share the same
mechanism with regard to how a specific type of shock develops.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Quick note - I am an infrequent editor of wikipedia so I'm sure this isn't formatted correctly
This article is hopeless. There are a few correct facts but the overall article shows that no-one editing it really understands what it is - especially given that the discussion page can't even agree on what they are talking about. 'Psychological shock' (PTSD, whatever else) has no place in this article. Circulatory shock refers to one thing: systemic hypoperfusion. This can be expanded in a number of ways (some of which are mentioned in the article). I will try and clean it up if I get a chance in the next few days / weeks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
110.32.41.171 (
talk)
08:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Revert
Sorry to hinder your work yet again, but you are making several mistakes.
1 An
Intra-aortic balloon pump[1] is inserted through the arteria femoralis and NOT the v. jugularis or v. subclavia. These are used when inserting a
central venous catheter.
2 Again you delete acute adrenal insufficiency. Please read what this condition is (
addisonian crisis).
3 Deleting therapy as suggested in Irwin and Rippe is odd when that is THE source of information in critically ill patients.Nomen Nescio21:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
IABP - This is where the tip LIES, not where it is inserted
Adrenal insufficiency - in the wrong place - should be in treatment
Panthro
1 Acute adrenal insufficency causes shock and therapy consists of corticosteroids, since
cortisol is lacking.
2 The IABP is inserted through the groin (a. femoralis) and the tip lies just caudal to the arcus aortae. Hence the name intra-aortic.
3 Therapy taken from Irwin and Rippe:
Cardiogenic shock: Depending on the type of myocardal infarction one can infuse fluids or inotropica. Should that not suffice an Intra aortic balloon pump can be considered or a left ventricular assist device.
Hypovolemic shock: In case of bleeding it is necessary to immediately control the bleeding and restore the victims blood volume by giving infusions of balanced salt solutions. Blood transufion are necessary for loss of large amounts of blood (e.g. greater than 20% of blood volume), but can be avoided in smaller and slower losses. Hypovolemic shock due to burns, diarrhea, vomiting, etc. is treated with infusions of electrolyte solutions that balance the nature of the fluid lost. Sodium is essential to keep the fluid infused in the extracellular and intravascular space (and prevent water intoxication and brain swelling). Metabolic acidosis (mainly due to lactic acid) accumulates as a result of poor delivery of oxygen to the tissues, and mirrors the severity of the shock. It is best treated by rapidly restoring intravascular volume and perfusion as above. Inotropic and vasoconstrictive drugs should be avoided, as they may interfere in the knowing that blood volume is returning to normal.
Distributive shock: In sepsis the infection is treated and supportive care is given. Anaphylaxis is treated with adrenalin and corticosteroids. Adrenal insufficienty is treated with corticosteroids. In neurogenic shock because of vasodilation in the legs, one of the most suggested treatments is placing the patient in the trendelenburg position, thereby elevating the legs and shunting blood back from the periphery to the body's core. However, since bloodvessels are highly compliant, and expand as result of the increased volume locally, this technique does not work. More suitable would be the use of vasopressors.
Obstructive shock: the only therapy consist of removing the obstruction.
4 Give me some time and I will insert references at all locations so you'll know where it is from.
5 Remeber you are a student nurse and it is not impossible you do not know everything.Nomen Nescio22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Revert
Sorry to hinder your work yet again, but you are making several mistakes.
1 An
Intra-aortic balloon pump[2] is inserted through the arteria femoralis and NOT the v. jugularis or v. subclavia. These are used when inserting a
central venous catheter.
2 Again you delete acute adrenal insufficiency. Please read what this condition is (
addisonian crisis).
3 Deleting therapy as suggested in Irwin and Rippe is odd when that is THE source of information in critically ill patients.Nomen Nescio21:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
IABP - This is where the tip LIES, not where it is inserted
Adrenal insufficiency - in the wrong place - should be in treatment
Panthro
1 Acute adrenal insufficency causes shock and therapy consists of corticosteroids, since
cortisol is lacking. Alot of things cause shock, is it necessary to mention them all? How prevalent is acute adrenal insufficiency in the formation of shock?
Panthro
More to the point, every patient on corticosteroid therapy that requires surgery or is acutely ill, should be seen by an internist to adjust the dosage. If not,
adrenal insufficiency is a real possibility. The use of corticosteroid therapy and surgery are not uncommon things so this condition is not a rare complication.Nomen Nescio19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
2 The IABP is inserted through the groin (a. femoralis) and the tip lies just ventral to the arcus aortae. Hence the name intra-aortic. distal to the subclavian and ventral to the aortic arch is the same place....
Panthro
It is also ventral from the spine and distal from the larynx. No doctor uses the description you use. BTW the aorta descendens bends dorsal from the aorta ascendens, which makes "ventral to the aortic arch" incorrect.Nomen Nescio22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
3 Therapy taken from Irwin and Rippe:
Cardiogenic shock: Depending on the type of myocardal infarction one can infuse fluids or inotropica. Should that not suffice an Intra aortic balloon pump can be considered or a left ventricular assist device.IN ARTCILE
Panthro
Hypovolemic shock: In case of bleeding it is necessary to immediately control the bleeding and restore the victims blood volume by giving infusions of balanced salt solutions.IN ARTCILE
Panthro
Blood transufion are necessary for loss of large amounts of blood
(e.g. greater than 20% of blood volume), but can be avoided in
smaller and slower losses. Hypovolemic shock due to burns,
diarrhea, vomiting, etc. is treated with infusions of electrolyte solutions
that balance the nature of the fluid lost. IN ARTCILE
Panthro
Sodium is essential to keep the fluid infused in the extracellular and intravascular space (and prevent water intoxication and brain swelling).IN ARTCILE - FURTHER EXPANSIONBut rewritten by you in a less accurate way.Nomen Nescio22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Metabolic acidosis (mainly due to lactic acid) accumulates as a result of poor delivery of oxygen to the tissues, and mirrors the severity of the shock. IN ARTCILE
Panthro
Inotropic and vasoconstrictive drugs should be avoided, as they may interfere in the knowing that blood volume is returning to normal.
Distributive shock: In sepsis the infection is treated and supportive care is given.IN ARTCILE
Panthro
Adrenal insufficienty is treated with corticosteroids. In neurogenic shock because of asodilation in the legs, one of the most suggested treatments is placing the patient in the trendelenburg position, thereby elevating the legs and shunting blood back from the periphery to the body's core. However, since bloodvessels are highly compliant, and expand as result of the increased volume locally, this technique does not work.WHY PUT THIS IN IF IT DOES NOT WORK???
Panthro
The main reason is your deletion of parts of types of shock. Addisionian crisis is important, many doctors have missed the diagnosis and thought it was septic shock.Nomen Nescio22:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Third Opinion
Can't you add these parts in? I am not going to revert it anymore, In order to resolve this dispute I have asked for a third opinion
Wikipedia:Third opinion
Can either of you boil this down to a specific dispute? I see you're both reverting each other's changes, but I'm not quite sure what the source of your disagreement is.
Fagstein04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
The following problems arise:
1 There are four types of shock used by physicians. An editor with insufficient medical knowledge thinks there are three, and first deleted the fourth
[3] and now advocates
it is suggested there are four types of shock.
2 Acute adrenal insufficiency causes what is called distributive shock. This editor not only repeatedly removed this condition, but falsely states that it does not result in shock.
Have corrected this, part of endocrine shock.18:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
3 Then this editor completely rewrites medical therapies for these conditions into:
[4]
Cardiogenic shock: Intra-aortic balloon pump - Balloon placed in the distal left
sub-clavian junction which assists in left ventricular ejection by increasing intra-aortic pressure. This assertion is incorrect, the
balloon is placed between the aortic arch and
renal arteries.
Hypovolemic shock: In case of bleeding it is necessary to immediately control the
bleeding and restore the victims blood volume by giving infusions of balanced salt solutions.
Blood transufion are necessary for loss of large amounts of blood (e.g. greater than 20% of blood volume), but can be avoided in smaller and slower losses. Hypovolemic shock due to burns, diarrhea, vomiting, etc. is treated with infusions of electrolyte solutions that balance the nature of the fluid lost. Sodium is essential to keep the fluid infused in the extracellular and intravascular space (and prevent water intoxication and brain swelling). Metabolic acidosis (mainly due to lactic acid) accumulates as a result of poor delivery of oxygen to the tissues, and mirrors the severity of the shock. It is best treated by rapidly restoring intravascular volume and perfusion as above. Inotropic and vasoconstrictive drugs should be avoided, as they may interfere in the knowing that blood volume is returning to normal. is deleted and turned into a elaborate discussion.
Distributive shock: In sepsis the infection is treated and supportive care is given. Anaphylaxis is treated with adrenalin and corticosteroids. Adrenal insufficienty is treated with corticosteroids. In
neurogenic shock because of vasodilation in the legs, one of the most suggested treatments is placing the patient in the trendelenburg position, thereby elevating the legs and shunting blood back from the periphery to the body's core. However, since bloodvessels are highly compliant, and expand as result of the increased volume locally, this technique does not work. More suitable would be the use of
vasopressors. This is deleted and replaced by less accurate therapies.
4 Although I suggested the original, and
current , version was taken from medical textbooks, (I named them in the previous discussions and marked what is taken from them in the article) apparently that is insufficient cause for a student nurse which has not read these books to accept that he might be making incorrect edits based on physology and nursing textbooks.Nomen Nescio13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Reread Irwin and Rippe, since I must confess my comments were based on memory and experience, and discovered a flaw in my argument. There are five types of shock. Therefore I have corrected that section to reflect what is presented in Irwin and Rippe (added note).Nomen Nescio18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Clean slate
I have no problem with the content, it is the sentence structure, grammar and paragraphs that are my problem. Please, revert any mistakes I have made, but reverting the ENTIRE article is wrong in my opinion. And add the parts I have deleted, intentionally or not.
My medical knowledge is limited and I am the first to say that, but I think my English skills are quite good. Articles MUST be factually accurate, but they must also make sense.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Panthro (
talk •
contribs)
Let's start with a clean slate. Discussing what we think could be improved is indeed more constructive. Please, explain what part you would like to change and make a suggestion how you would change it.
The article is fine now, IMO, but we need a signs and symptoms for endocrine.
Oh and I have found a site which lists "Respiratory shock" - the credibility of which I am not sure...
Respiratory Shock is when there is not enough oxygen getting into the lungs. When this happens an insufficient amount of oxygen is carried on the red blood cells, and the tissues of the body fail to receive the amount of oxygen they require to survive. This will cause cyanosis (bluish tinge to the skin) to develop, initially in the hands and feet, then around the mouth and on the face, then if not corrected, centrally on the body. Respiratory shock can be caused by trauma, but the most common culprits are: airway obstructions, asthma, congestive heart failure (CHF), pulmonary edema (PE), other diseases of the lungs like Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and inhalation of gases other than oxygen, i.e. carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide that has not been diluted with O2. Some signs and symptoms to look for are cool, clammy skin, pale or cyanotic color, use of accessory muscles to breath, inspiratory stridor (sounds like a high pitched crowing sound when the patient inhales), wheezing, rhonchi, or rales. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Panthro (
talk •
contribs)
Never heard of it, but it does fit the definition: mismatch between oxygen required by and oxygen delivered to tissues. What site is it, can you show the link?
Higher up this page I have also explained the why distributive shock has relative hypovolemia, you may want to read.Nomen Nescio 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC
Dead Horse?
HI - I don't think "Endocrine Shock" should have its own heading. Its not a widely used term in clinical practice and the types of shock described therein can be reclassified into the the more recognised categories. For instance - hypo and hyper thyroidism cause shock through thier effects on the heart - cardiogenic. Likewise lack of cortisol causes a form of distributive shock. Any thoughts?
SkinnyB22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Although you are correct that it is not well-known, please consider the fact that this is the classification offered by Irwin and Rippe. Since that Textbook is to intensive care medicine what the Harrison is to internal medicine I think we should adopt their view.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Simplify?
Is it possible to simplify part of the introduction so that laymen like me could actually understand what shock is? I don't advocate dumbing down the entire entry, but a couple sentences written so that someone with limited knowledge of physiology could understand the concept would be nice.
Several of the "footnotes" (often to a full paragraph) also appear in the references list. Can they be combined without losing the ability to support individual statements?
Finavon23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Unclear
Someone needs to edit this page so a laymen can understand it. I want to understand what shock is, medically, but it needs to be explained to me. There is too much assumed knowledge on this. It's an encyclopedia - anyone should be able to understand it.
I agree with whoever wrote the first point here. I was curious about what exactly it means when somebody goes into shock, and I just wanted a quick explanation. I came here and can't even read this, as I have no medical background, and I don't really care to first spend hours studying just to get a basic idea of it. I found this on the NIH website: "Shock is a life-threatening condition that occurs when the body is not getting enough blood flow. This can damage multiple organs. Shock requires IMMEDIATE medical treatment and can get worse very rapidly." That's all I wanted to know; is it possible to say something similar (without copying, of course) at the top of this page for us laymen, while leaving the rest intact, so we don't have to first learn what these all mean: adenosine triphosphate, hypoxia, pyruvic acid, metabolic acidosis, baroreceptors, noradrenaline, Renin-angiotensin, arginine vasopressin, renal system, Renin-angiotensin axis, homeostatic, compensatory mechanisms, perfusion of the cells, anaerobic metabolism, arteriolar, precapillary sphincters, hydrostatic pressure, micro-circulation, reduced perfusion?
Jeffcogs01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I have updated the introduction here (although not got in to the body of the text as yet). You were all quite correct, I imagine it was quite difficult for a lay reader. Have a look at the new intro, and see if you think its pitched at the right level.
Owain.davies07:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)reply
a (prose):A bit wordy and over-complicated. Try to use simple sentences in the active voice. Just some examples from the first section:
"The process of removing these compounds from the cells by the liver requires oxygen, which is absent." would be better as "These compounds are normally removed from the cells by the liver, but this requires oxygen so the liver cannot do this during hypoxia."
"This stage is characterised by the body employing physiological mechanisms, including neural, hormonal and bio-chemical mechanisms in an attempt to reverse the condition." would be better as "During this stage the body employs physiological mechanisms, including neural, hormonal and biochemical changes in attempts to reverse the condition."
"As a result of the acidosis, the person will begin to hyperventilate in order to rid the body of carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 indirectly acts to acidify the blood and by removing it the body is attempting to raise the pH of the blood." would be better as "Acidosis causes the person to hyperventilate, which removes carbon dioxide (CO2) from their blood. As this gas acidifies the blood by producing
carbonic acid, hyperventilation is an attempt by the body to raise the pH of the blood back to the normal value."
Introduction to the section on "Stages of shock" needs to list the stages and give a brief overview, so the reader isn't plunged into the details if they are skimming the article.
b (MoS):
No sections on Diagnosis, Prevention or History (see
MedMOS). I realise that there are a very broad set of causes, so for prevention it would probably be OK to just state at the start of the section on types of shock that prevention depends on treating the particular cause of the condition (unless there are general preventative measures). The section on "Signs and symptoms" could be renamed "Symptoms and diagnosis".
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (statements):
The discussion of cellular pathology in "Stages of shock - Initial" is a bit confused. Is it the lack of oxygen that causes disruption of the plasma membrane, or the lack of ATP? Simlarly, it isn't the fact that cells become more permeable that causes them to switch to anaerobic respiration, it is the lack of oxygen. Causes and effects are a bit confused in this section.
The liver doesn't remove compounds from cells, it removes them from the circulation.
"Renin-angiotensin axis is activated" - What is the "axis"?
"a fifth form of shock has been introduced" - might be better to say a "fifth classification", so it doesn't sound like doctors are promoting a new form of illness! :)
b (citations to reliable sources):
Many sections have no citations. A reader should be able to check where a statement comes from, and the citations in the text lack page numbers.
c (OR):
No obvious OR I can spot, but few citations so it takes specialised knowledge to say this.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):
Yes, although a history section would be a good addition.
b (focused):
Yes, good.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Fine.
5. It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
None.
6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The shock therapy image would be much better as a table or list, there is no need for a figure only containing text.
7. Overall:
Fail I'm afraid. It's got all the information for a GA, but particularly with the citation problems and the rather dense prose I can't pass this at the moment.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Having just completed a class on basic first aid, I'm aware that while waiting for EMS to arrive, it's recommended that a shock victim's legs be elevated 12-18 inches (victim is lying on back). Should this information be added to the Treatment section? --
Spiff666 (
talk)
18:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I have a question about the treatment section. In this section, it mentions a debate between stay and stabilize or load and go. As an EMS provider in Canada, I had no knowledge of any debate. As far as I know, the only real treatment is to get the patient into an operating room as quickly as possible. The only other prehospital treatment I know of is two large bore IVs and oxygen administration. The only long term fix is to get them to an operating room. If anyone can better inform me of the debate, I would really appreciate it.
I won't edit the article for a bit, but I would really appreciate some reference to the debate, or else I think the sentence should go away.
Thanks a lot.
Nickers (
talk)
01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
This is a strange bit of logic about the "debate" between stay and stabilize or load and go: "respecting the
golden hour. If surgery is required, it should be performed within the first hour to maximise the patient's chance of survival." If one actually reads the article on the Golden Hour, it emphasizes doubt on the validity of the entire concept. I suspect the writer didn't actually read the Wikipedia
Golden hour (medicine) article, and has not kept up-to-date in the field either. Without references or citations, it sounds like a "debate around the water cooler" rather than policy debate. I vote for deletion.
Cuvtixo (
talk)
01:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I have a copy of Irwin and it does not once comment on endocrine shock. Thus we have a serious problems. Please add page numbers for this ref. Uptodate does not recognize this either. Looks like OR?--
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)reply
References
I've added William R. Emerson, that is one of his works. Here it is listed
[5].
Yup, I'm going to change 'tecidual' to tissue, mainly because it took me a good couple minutes to figure that out, and I should be familiar with the terminaology.
BertieB (
talk)
00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Cushing's?
I know I'm merely a humble EMT, but I've never heard the association of the Cushing's reflex/ Cushing's triad with anything other than increased intracranial pressure--and certainly not with shock. Moreover, the article currently is phrased so that it sounds as if the adrenaline response
(and subsequent increase in blood pressure and heart rate) are the Cushing's reflex/triad while the true Cushing's triad is, in fact, traditionally marked by bradycardia (although, admittedly also by increased systolic pressure). Can anyone validate this? Is there even any reason for mention of the Cushing's reflex in relation to shock?
-
3loodlust (
talk)
01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm a medical student actually and I read about shock in some of the books. In this book "Textbook of Medical Physiology" written by Dr. G.K.Pal published by Ahuja Publishing House, it did mentioned at section IX, page 677 that Cushing reflex is activated during rapid compensatory reaction in order to increase vasoconstriction and cardiac output. So, this is what I found.
Cerevisae (
talk)
17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm a second year medical student and this Cushing's reflex is in none of my textbooks. It sounds like rubbish, and has made me suspicious of the rest of the article. Someone should remove it, or find an extremely good reference. Makes no physiological sense to me.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.67.156.208 (
talk)
14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm going to second the question of Cushing's in relation to regular systemic shock, I have only read it in relation to increased ICP. For the 3rd, unsigned comment,
Cushing's reaction is a known sympathetic nervous reaction to increased ICP causing an extreme and rapid rise in arterial pressure to compensate for a compressed artery in the brain, like
Korotkoff sounds. My physiology book, Guyton's 11th, lists it after mentioning the extreme sympathetic nervous response to cerebral ischemia from any cause, which, I suppose would occur as well in circulatory shock. I'm not sure if bradycardia occurs often in circulatory shock, it seems I hear tachycardia more commonly associated with this. However, Cushing's reaction and Cushing's triad could hold a distinction. In my all-to-brief studies of these subjects, I have not seen it associated with circulatory shock.
Bloomingdedalus (
talk)
22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Simplification for non-specialists
I embedded definitions of the relevant medical terms early in the article. I think the very first sentence of the article should be simple enough to effectively define shock without using a word (perfusion) unknown to a layperson.
Did the same with rapid heartbeat/low blood pressure. No need for non-specialist readers to have to click on an entire new article to get a meaning that can be communicated in two words. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.169.117.19 (
talk)
03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Not a B
This is not a B article, I am down-grading it. There are too many uncited statements, poor reference style in some of the cited statements. There are too many lists which can be converted to prose or tables. Just too many problems in general.
Bloomingdedalus (
talk)
22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)reply
The edits of the past days, transforming the subtypes as discussed in numerous textbooks, into some sort of DD is a mystery to me. The most relevant sources have been eliminated (Rippe, FCCS), from what used to be the best part of this article, which has proven that improvement was not the principal goal. Was there a compelling reason to rewrite that paragraph to no longer reflect the sources? Or, was the fact the sources were not part of the decision the cause of removing them alltogether?--- Nomen NescioGnothi seautoncontributions14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The source Rippe is from 2003. Updating per
WP:MEDRS. Another reason for the rewrite is we are trying to write in an encyclopedic format (which means in prose rather than in lists). The Rippe text looks good just should use a newer version. BTW references to it have not been removed by me (except the one in the lead)...
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Please could we have a totally simple section in the article on First Aid applications, basically: (1) what causes it, (2) how to recognise the condition, (3) how to give basic treatment while waiting for a doctor or ambulance ? Thanks.
Darkman101 (
talk)
20:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Nice elucidation of the the positive feedback effect of circulatory shock. Consider adding briefly to the lead physical signs and symptoms (i.e. cool and clammy skin), the stages of shock from pre-shock to end organ failure, and the 3 (or 4) types of shock. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dfhicks12 (
talk •
contribs)
00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)reply
This is strange "Shock can still be diagnosed by measuring vital signs. As shock develops, the first vital sign to change is skin temperature and color; the patient will become pale and cool."
I am a 4th year medical student. As part of a course I am enrolled in, I am hoping to make several changes and modifications to this article on shock - with the end goal of improving readability, adding content to several sections, and embellishing on the several bullet points located throughout the article. I am also hoping to update many of the literature references in order to make sure that the article conforms to the latest guidelines and recommendations. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the topic of this article, some medical terminology will have to be used - however, I will link to the relevant topics and simplify as needed. With luck, I am hoping to get the page promoted to B-Class.
I really like the infobox on the top right side of the page. I will utilize this to better my Hypoalbuminemia page specifically because it was incomplete and partially incorrect for my article.
The lead gives a great overview of the article and does it in very simple, plain language with medicalization as appropriate. I feel like if this was the only part of the page that I read, I would have an appropriate familiarization with the topic.
The “Signs and symptoms” section could use some improvement. For one, I think the “Hemorrhage classes” table would be more appropriately located within the diagnosis section of the article. I understand the reasoning of putting it in this section because this is where you talk about changes in heart rate and BP being signs and symptoms of shock, but assigning a class of shock to a patient is a diagnostic process. In addition, it is odd to break up the “Signs and symptoms” into subtypes and then not include obstructive shock. I think that two options to overcome this issue would be to either add obstructive shock and better each subtype specifically, or to write your own integrative section that uses the differentiating features to better show how the signs and symptoms can be used to tell the difference between the types of shock. I appreciate having the bullets for each sign and symptom. I think this is an effective way to organize something that is mostly in lists. Two organizational minutiae to fix would be to get rid of the septic shock subsection within distributive shock (too much organizing) and to make bullet points for distributive shock instead of having this be a narrative.
The “Cause” section is well-organized and gives appropriate amounts of information and resources to each of the types of shock, including endocrine shock (which hasn’t yet been mentioned in the article). Reading this after the “Signs and symptoms” section is a little odd and I would consider switching them especially given the focus of the “Signs and symptoms” section on differentiating features. Further, given that you go into such detail here for the four different types, I would especially consider writing an integrative “Signs and symptoms” section instead of a section based on the different types. As for minutiae, I would suggest limiting the extensive quotations within the septic shock bullet point under distributive shock.
The “Pathophysiology section” is a really well-done one. I have almost no critiques. On the one hand, this section is particularly medicalized and uses a number of terms and concepts that would be unknown to the lay reader, but on the other hand, this is a section that is probably purposefully targeted towards medical students and other providers instead of patients and their families. You could consider optimizing this section in terms of language (it is a grade 13 on the Hemingway App). Also love the figure. Minutiae: citation needed for all information provided for the compensatory phase of shock.
The “Diagnosis” section does not have a real purpose as the article is currently written. Instead of being a section that talks about how you can determine whether or not a patient is in shock when they show up in your emergency room or on your floor, it talks about what tests you would use on a patient that is suspected to be in shock. I would revamp this section by talking about ways in which shock can be first identified (including SIRS criteria), ways you can differentiate between the different causes (briefly since this is a whole section), diagnosing the different classes of shock (based on the table now in “Signs and symptoms”), and considering adding a differential diagnosis subsection.
The “Management” section is well-organized and I appreciate how the different parts are organized. This is especially particular for this article but I plan to use similar concepts for my own article. I think the “Mechanical support” subsection needs to be fleshed out a bit, but the other sections look great as is.
Finally, the “Epidemiology”, “Prognosis”, and “History” sections are limited but do provide appropriate information. These could be fun for you to fill out but personally I don’t think that they are so necessary for either patients or providers viewing the page.
Overall, I think this is a great article. I can totally see why it was nominated (in 2008!) to be considered a “Great Article”, but I can also see why it didn’t meet some of those criteria. I think editing the article with a focus on accessibility and organization could really increase the impact of the article and its utilization by patients and providers. Specifically, I think that all of the framework is there to make this a complete article, but needs focus within those sections to make it more effective. I would focus on the specific changes mentioned above and expand other sections as you see fit given your interests. Well done and I look forward to seeing how this looks at the end of the week!
All forms of shock have a group of basic symptoms. In my opinion those should be discussed under the main "signs and symptoms" heading with subsequent sections only discussing the symptoms specific or special to that form.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
08:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply