Talk:Infectious mononucleosis

Glandular fever - Mono is an exclusive Americanism.

In the majority of the English-speaking world - and, for that matter, the rest of the world as well - this is colloquially known exclusively as glandular fever. The term Mono, and Mononucleosis, is exclusive to the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, and is almost completely unknown outside of those countries. Shouldn't the page reflect this, rather than pretending the reverse is true? Khardankov (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Immunity?

Do you, or most people, get immune for life, or for a period of time, once you've had the infection? Is it the same whether you've been symptomatic or not? Maybe the article answers those questions, but I haven't found the answers - and I think it should answer them.--Nø (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Infectious mononucleosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femke (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Konstantina. Thank you very much for improving this article and nominating it for GA. I see you're relatively new to Wikipedia editing. You may not yet be aware of our guidance on what sources Wikipedia prefers in medical articles, so I advise you to take a quick look there. Most importantly, medical sources should typically be secondary sources and relatively new sources. For a big topic like this, there should usually be reviews available published in the last five years. Older reviews might be outdated and we can't ascertain that they are correct without checking more recent sources. A quick glance at the article reveals that quite a few sources are older than five years old. For instance:

• The source in the lead that says there is promising vaccine research stems from 2007. Is this research still considered promising? Or was it a dead end?
• Thus current evidence still suggest the 33 data 49 day between affections and symptom presentation? The source stems from 2001.
• You added a 1978 source about other causes of infectious mononucleosis. Are they still classified as infectious mononucleosis? And is this percentage still true?
• I believe there is now much stronger evidence linking EBV to multiple sclerosis. You probably want to replace the 2010 source with a newer review.
• the source sites that there is a 5% chance of complication. However our article about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome says 8% to 15% of people develop this syndrome after infectious mononucleosis.

Another GA requirement is broadness. You may want to improve the section in the pathophysiology. It currently talks a bit about the differential diagnosis, which is better placed at the differential diagnosis section, it doesn't talk too much about the pathophysiology. For instance, according to this summary source, it spreads via the lymphic system, which we dont quite mention.

All in all, the article requires quite some work before it meets the GA criteria. I think the best way forward is for me to fail this nomination for now. If you would like some mentoring and additional tips on how to improve medical articles, my talk page is always open. Another great place to meet people But loads of experience editing medical articles is at The WikiProject Medicine. You are free to re-nominate when you've addressed the comments, and updated the article to use better sourcing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2024 (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.

Implausible

About 45 out of 100,000 people develop infectious mono each year in the United States. Nearly 95% of people have had an EBV infection by the time they are adults.

These two just don't go together. Unless those 45 are really getting around. 178.197.218.200 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"Infectous nucleosis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Infectous nucleosis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 20 § Infectous nucleosis until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)