Talk:Respiratory sounds

Physiology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the respiratory system.

Medicine: Pulmonology High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Respiratory sounds.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 20 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): B12Braggart. Peer reviewers: Bkarnkowska.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audio files[edit]

While it's great that there are audio files for the various abnormal respiratory sounds, it would be helpful to have a file with normal respiratory audio as a base for comparison. DKqwerty 05:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a Normal breath sounds section that includes normal breath sounds audio. Let me know what you think! Thanks! B12Braggart (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No... this is wrong... (Logically incoherent)[edit]

This statement "inspiratory sounds are faster and louder and longer" doesn't make sense. The correct statement should be that expiratory sounds are LONGER than inspiratory, i.e. inspiratory sounds are SHORTER (or "faster") than inspiratory 182.255.99.214 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Rhonchi[edit]

Stub mostly covered on target page Iztwoz (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support easier for readers to have this in one page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takes breath sounds and rhonchi are backwards Joelyarberry17 (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonchi (Contradictory?)[edit]

In the article it is said that "Since the mid-1990s, it [rhonchi] has no longer been considered appropriate terminology in auscultation of the thorax," however the word "rhonchi" is used in the table. It seems contradictory that the word 'rhonchi' is not considered 'appropriate' but is still used in the article. Should that be changed in some way? veganmartians1234 ((talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiratory gasp audio file is unavailable.[edit]

"see New England Journal of Medicine, Classic Whooping Cough sound file, Supplement to the N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2023-2026" is not found on the page directed to, nor is it found in the NEJM search function. There is an article on the fundamentals of lung sounds, but either a subscription or a registration for 2 free articles is required. I do not know if audio files are associated with that article.

However, the Merck Manual, Professional Version website has an audio file: https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/multimedia/audio/v1006252. Like stridor, this inspiratory gasping is considered an emergency. The gasping requires immediate suctioning and oxygen. Once heard in life coming from a tiny infant, it is unforgettable. >_<

Furthermore, at the Merck website, there are audio files for normal respirations, crackles, wheezing, stridor, friction rub, and the egophony of the spoken long E to long A change: https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/pulmonary-disorders/approach-to-the-pulmonary-patient/evaluation-of-the-pulmonary-patient?query=pleural%20friction%20rub. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TCOM Medical Student Editing Respiratory Sounds[edit]

Hello, my name is B12Braggart and I am a third-year medical student located in Texas. I am participating in the WikiProject Medicine within my medical school and plan to edit this article. This post is intended to elicit feedback and learn of any areas this article needs to be improved in. In addition, this post will also serve as a "trial run" for my first talk page post. I hope I am able to make meaningful contributions to this topic!

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I initially chose to evaluate Respiratory sounds as my article because of my interest in pulmonology as well as the classification as a Top article with a Start rating. This article matters because respiratory sounds are assessed in almost every medical physical exam by healthcare providers to assess pulmonary function and/or to rule out pulmonary disease. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was narrow and lacked complete coverage.

**Article Evaluation**
Question	Comments
Initial analysis of the article?	This article is appropriately rated as a start class article. It contains a decent amount of information. However, it lacks citations. The tone is neutral
Overall organization	Overall, the organization of the article is good. The article is both easy to follow and understand
What will you add/change?	Include a Normal breath sounds section and chart to allow comparison with Abnormal breath sounds Include a Controversial consensus section to convey the difficulty in the standardization of these terms in practice
Which sections will you prioritize?	The two sections stated above

B12Braggart (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]