Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMedicine: Ophthalmology C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 4 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydneyglouse.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Article text modified from a government website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popsracer (talkcontribs) 13:07, 5 July 2004 (UTC).Reply[reply]

FYI, Fisher is the Jazz's starting shooting guard. He also backsup the point guard position, but the bulk of his minutes come at the 2-guard.

derek fisher[edit]

is it worth noting that Derek Fisher's daughter just had surgery for this? He spoke about it in the post game interview just a few minutes ago. Maxterpiece 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

     This should under no circumstances be included in a serious article. It is fill and not needed.
     If any truly worldwide famous, people had it or made a big deal of it, thus making it a         
     reference of interest, it would be a maybe-case. Madskile 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autosomal dominant[edit]

Genetical info is lacking. The disease is autosomal and dominantly linked, with a frequency of 1/25000. We need to find a reference. I don't have one. Madskile 21:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

possibly copyrighted info[edit]

People have been trying to add info which may be under a 'normal' copyright. [1] Please don't add this until we are sure and have proof the org permits it, as it's against the wiki rules and possibly against the law. This protects other sites as well as wiki because we are not stealing text they might not want used, often people are not aware how the content on wiki can be used and they need to be sure they want to release the info under the GFDL. Sticky Parkin 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other stuff to add[edit]

Any general info about the genetics of Rb can be found at pubmed (PMID: 2101724), as that section is uncited. Also, I think trilateral Rb should be mentioned as well (bilateral + pineoblastoma). Terren5 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we could add information about the increased incidence of other cancers for retinoblastoma survivors. Specifically, I am reading a lot about osteosarcoma and small cell lung cancer. Blackbird70 6:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're reading high-quality sources, then please feel free to add the information yourself. It would normally go in a section called ==Epidemiology== at the end, or perhaps one called ==Prognosis==.
Be sure to include your sources. You might find this citation formatter handy if you've looked up sources at or if it's in a book with an ISBN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An earlier paragraph about genetic testing was removed in 2006. Was this because there was no evidence given? If so, I am happy to rework the paragraph to include citations. Nprigoda (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support orgs link farm, "advice"[edit]

Recent edits by myself and another editor (after this) have been undone.[2] Let's discuss what belongs in this article, and what doesn't. --Una Smith (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that these issues should be handled separately. First: the external links are spam: they are unjustifiable under WP:EL; they violate the formatting conventions of WP:EL by placing external links in text; they fail WP:NOTLINK; they tend to make the page into a patient support resource instead of an encyclopedia article against the advice of WP:MEDMOS#Audience; they violate WP:MEDMOS#External_links; the existence of a long list encourages the addition of other, similar links in ways that clearly violate WP:NOTDIR.
Finally -- IMO -- they assume that readers are primarily patients, which is not true, and that those (few) readers that are personally affected are too stupid to ask Mr Google about support resources, which is insulting. I think the entire list should be removed. If one or two websites have particularly good, detailed information, then I'm willing to compromise by listing one or two links, sans promotional descriptions, under ==External links==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry: I "let my heart rule my head". I thought "if this information about symptoms and who to contact saves a few children from going blind, then leaving this information in is worthwhile". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is a fine thing in its place, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public health service. (That said, I can't imagine anyone reading about symptoms of a cancer, seeing them in someone else, and not seeing a doctor over it; the opposite reaction is perhaps more likely.)
I've made the changes that seemed indicated from this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that they should be kept out, maybe find one that doesn't overtly advertise and is high quality and it can go in external links. I find it pretty unlikely that wiki will be anyones only source of information on this topic, besides, there are already plenty of high quality external links that people can go to and read further. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genetic testing[edit]

Following the lead of the featured Wkikpedia Poland page on retinoblastoma, I am preparing a few paragraphs on genetic testing.Nprigoda (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Coat's is a misspelling. The person behind was Georg Coats, and hence proper genitive is Coats'

    I noticed it was "Coats's Disease" and fixed it to "Coats' Disease ~Wikilgn


Seminar doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61137-9 JFW | T@lk 20:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Retinoblastoma. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]