Talk:Primary biliary cholangitis

Name change

The proposal to change the name of this disorder to Primary Biliary Cholangitis has gained support in 2014 and 2015 and Rgishsd performed a big edit on April 6, 2015. This change has been justified as needed because most patients with PBC do not have cirrhosis when diagnosed and the case for this is well described at [1]. However WP is not an advocacy organization, however good the case may be, and I have been unable to find any peer-reviewed articles which use the proposed term. Furthermore, no changes in the reference titles can be made.

I suggest using the term PBC, with historical context and updated references as and when there are good sources. I will create a link from a new page Primary biliary cholangitis to the current PBC page.Jrfw51 (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The disease is still called mostly "primary biliary cirrhosis". While I understand a new term may be coming agree we should wait until it is here to change the name of the article. Have altered the first sentence.

Also per our MOS we should use "primary biliary cholangitis". Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

jytdog, Doc James. There is now a mainstream press article [2] on PBC and the Foundation using the new name. I have referenced this and I have rebolded primary biliary cholangitis in the lead. I don't think it is yet time to move the article until the medical press has started using it. Jrfw51 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail is an infamously bad source. See the many discussions at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at the debate at RSN. It may not be what you or I choose to read but it is the most widely read paper and internet site (by women, so I am told) and this use is pretty uncontroversial! But there is no hurry and there may be other sources. Jrfw51 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use the daily mail. It is basically a tabloid that has no place in a medical article. Good sources will come if and when this new name gains sufficient traction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles on name change now in Gut, Hepatology, J Hepatol, Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol - and a mention of the name in the popular non-medical press (Mail on Sunday) which is appropriate for Society and Culture if not for MEDRS. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been reverted by Jytdog without evidence that he has read the articles. He justifies this by saying this is advocacy. I have written on his talk page. Please comment on your interpretations of the journals, the article and the professional reputation of the AASLD etc. Jrfw51 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• None of the standard databases in the infobox use the new name, suggesting that for now at the most it should be given as an alternative in the first line. Wherever it is it should be bolded, as it redirects here. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the related discussions at jytdog and WT:MED#PBC. Let's try to reach consensus here.

This new name has only very recently appeared in the verifiable scientific literature and will not have made it into other databases yet. It will never be in ICD10 for instance as new nomenclature for ICD11 is now being sought. There are many instances where disorders are known by several names which have changes over time. I agree that at present WP should keep the currently recognised name as the article's title, and it is appropriate to have the redirect from the new name which should be bolded in the lead. The lead needs to be changed, as the new name is now in the scientific literature. Under the Society and Culture section, I had written (again) a brief description explaining the name change. I am not advocating this (see my first post in this thread) but just trying to document what has now been agreed by the American and European professional liver organisations and by all the main journals where the leaders in this disease have asked for the new name to be used and the editors agreed to the multiple publications. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No more details on the name change is needed in the lead. Further details could go in the society and culture section though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DOI for Gut article doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310593 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Name Change in 2017?

Is it now time for WP to recognise the change in name too? I would suggest swapping the lead to "Primary biliary cholangitis, previously known as primary biliary cirrhosis, ..." or just use this word order with "also known as ...". For good qualilty sources, please look at: [3] [4] [5] [6] I would propose the article name is also changed, with the redirect changing to be from "primary biliary cirrhosis" to "primary biliary cholangitis". Thanks.Jrfw51 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lancet seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00154-3 JFW | T@lk 14:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)