Talk:Rubella

A news item involving Rubella was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 May 2015.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Dermatology / Translation High‑importance 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 Dermatology task force. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance). Viruses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Rubella. 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

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lafe tc5598.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about some information on why it is sometimes called "German" measles? anon

Well, you can research this question yourself and add it to the article! JFW | T@lk 14:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Liberty Measles? Was this some sort of WWI/WWII thing, where everything German got renamed, like Liberty Cabbage? --talk to me crimes against humanity02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. JFW | T@lk 10:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation for "German" differs between the English and Simple English pages. English says it actually has to do with Germany, while Simple English says it does not. English has several sources, though. Should the Simple English page be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.156.194 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The text on the Simple English page is similar to that on this page a while back. I researched the name and concluded that the previous text was a result of improbable folk etymology. Colin°^Talk 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's german as in germane, i.e similar to, measles. That's why it's latin name is a diminutive of rubeola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.56 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected rose rash here. IF I'm wrong please fixit. Rich Farmbrough 13:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rose rash of infants appears to be Sixth disease. Rich Farmbrough 14:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of my vague early-childhood memories is of TV ads or program segments featuring "The Rubella Umbrella", part of some sort of nonprofit campaign to do something about this disease. This would be around the late '60s or early '70s, in the New York area. *Dan T.* 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) In 1970 New York City TV channel WPIX aired a "Rubella Umbrella" commercial to educate the public on the new vaccine (source: http://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/14/archives/citys-rubella-drive-on-tv-sells-children-on-need-for-shots.html?_r=0 and my memory). Actor Hugh Marlowe voiced a man asking an animated girl carrying a polka-dotted "Rubella umbrella". "Hey, little girl, what's that you're carrying? -That's my Rubella umbrella...". source: Hugh Marlowe was my uncle. I can't find another source for this, and I can't find a recording of the 1-minute commercial. http://www.nytimes.com/1970/06/14/archives/citys-rubella-drive-on-tv-sells-children-on-need-for-shots.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loribbb (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vodcaster Cali Lewis/Luria Petrucci (of GeekBrief.TV) was diagnosed with rubella recently, as is mentioned on her webpage.130.49.36.140 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The US has only eliminated native cases (last one was in 2000). Eradication is some way off. Colin°^Talk 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between eradication and elimination of a disease. Elimination refers to the absence of endemic transmission. It is defined (by the CDC) as "the lack of existence of any continuous U.S.-acquired chain of transmission that persists for >12 months in any defined geographic area".[1] One case, or even a dozen cases, does not negate the elimination. Mrs. Lewis could have contracted it overseas, or from a vaccination. No-chain of transmission = absence of endemic rubella = elimination. Period.

Eradication on the other hand means the total elimination of all cases. Only one disease has ever been eradicated (that's smallpox).

Further, even if enough information were given about this case (where did she contract rubella, had she been vaccinated, ect..) since a podcast is not verifiable nor is a blog a reliable source. Unless the elimination declaration is rescinded (by the CDC) we should stick with the terms and conclusions outlined by the CDC.--DO11.10 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adopting this important article. I checked the History to see if I need to tell a major contributor; but there does not seem to be one. My long term plan is to combine Rubella virus with this article. I know the virology of this subject quite well, but I will eventually need to call upon my Wiki project for medicine pals to provide input regarding the clinical, (ie. dealing with infected persons' worries).--GrahamColm^Talk 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just noticed that both "articles" direct to the same page. It's getting late. Sorry about his.--GrahamColm^Talk 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish all my long term plans were resolved so quickly! Glad you're tackling this short article. I did some research into the name "German measles" a while back, which resulted in a correction to the article combined with a silly number of citations. An old "Notes and Queries" journal from 1878 had one writer speculating the origin and conducting folk etymology about "germanus". Several responses pointed out the actual association with Germany. I can dig those out if you want them. Always meant to look up the big OED somewhere to find out what they thought... Colin°^Talk 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember now that I also did some work on the history section. It would be great if you could check the facts and expand this. Colin°^Talk 14:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would benefit both articles if Rubella is merged with Congenital rubella syndrome. The latter is only a stub and there will be a lot of overlap if these two artcles are developed independantly.--GrahamColm^Talk 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the other article contains so little. An expanded Rubella would be expected to say at least as much in a section on the syndrome. However, I see some problems with the merge:

• The syndrome is a distinct disease. Looking at the InfoBox, it has its own ICD codes and associated medical articles.
• It would be possible to expand CRS according to WP:MEDMOS as a distinct article with its own sections (Signs, causes, pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, prognosis, etc.). It might not be a large article, but many of the suggested sections are appropriate. This isn't just a symptom or long-term consequence of a person's own rubella—it is a distinct condition in the child.
• Searching PubMed for '"Congenital rubella"[TI]" finds 689 journal articles with that phrase in the title. Admittedly, the number of new articles is likely to be already on the way down, but there's plenty information out there for someone to mine.
• There are about 50 article links to Congenital rubella syndrome (though many of those links are coming via the template "Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period"). These would then link (via a redirect) to Rubella, which isn't nearly as useful if someone is interested in the congenital issues alone.
• The vaccine was created to prevent CRS rather than rubella, which is pretty mild.
• The statistics for the number of cases of CRS in the 1960s is quite shocking. There are still be a lot of people around who are affected with this condition. So many, I read somewhere, that the US had to build new schools for the deaf to cope with the surge.

However, the two conditions are so intertwined that I agree some overlap would occur. And epidemics of CRS are completely associated with epidemics of Rubella so it would be very hard to discuss one but not the other. I can't make up my mind whether a merge would be good or bad. Colin°^Talk 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am unsure about this merge. I think that point four is of particular importance here. Based on my experiences, I suspect that when this article becomes fuller you will find that the CRS material is ported back to a separate article anyway. If you find when you get into it that the main Rubella article is lacking without the CRS material then I would support a merge. It would indeed be very nice if the CRS article could be expanded, since this form is of particular importance with respect to complications and has defined social implications. Just my $0.02.--DO11.10 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. guys, I suggest that I work on the two articles as separate entities and that we re-consider a merger further down the road. In the meantime I will, hopefully, with you approval, remove the merge template. (just my £0.02 response) ;-) --GrahamColm^Talk 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the proposed merger. CRS is a topic in itself that could be discussed in detail on its own page.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the german version of this page, and it has no mention of the fact that we call this disease "German measles". Someone who can write better German than me may wish to inform them of this odd fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.34 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original term was measles germanus (Latin: similar to measles). I have never heard of the german physician explanation. Sydoc (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the eMedTV "explanation" as it isn't a reliable source and has no foundation. The origin of "German measles" is somewhat shrouded, as one might expect of a lay term that just comes into use (as opposed to some Latin term you might expect to find in a medical text). Notes and Queries columns from the late 19th century also discussed this, so the problem of its origins has been around for over 100 years. What is clear is that the word "German" has always been spelled with an upper-case G. The "germanus" explanation appears to be a false or folk etymology. Perhaps GrahamColm (talk · contribs) has access to better sources? Colin°^Talk 08:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up promotion at March of Dimes and here are some formatted sources:

• Brown, David (March 1, 2005). [p://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51912-2005Mar20.html "Rubella Virus Eliminated in the [[United States]]"]. Washington Post. Retrieved October 11, 2010. {{cite news}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
• "CDC, Achievements in Public Health: Elimination of Rubella and Congenital Rubella Syndrome - United States, 1969-2004". MMWR Weekly. 54 (11): 279–282. 25. Retrieved October 11, 2010. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Online Fact Sheet". Pan American Health Organization. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
• [p://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51912-2005Mar20.html "UNICEF Press Release"]. UNICEF Website. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
• Irons B, Lewis M, Dahl-Regis M, Castillo-Solorzano C, Carrasco P, de Quadros C (2000). "Strategies to Eradicate Rubella in the English-Speaking Caribbean" (PDF). Am J Public Health. 90 (10): 1545–1549. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.10.1545. PMID 11029986. Retrieved October 11, 2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• "CDC Conference Report". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 22. Retrieved October 11, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article included the following text:

The name rubella is sometimes confused with rubeola, an alternative name for measles in English-speaking countries; the diseases are unrelated. In some other European languages, like Portuguese or Spanish, rubella and rubeola are synonyms, and rubeola is not an alternative name for measles.

I have removed the mention to Portuguese, leaving only "like Spanish," as the word rubella does not exist in Portuguese (in fact, double "L" has been removed from Portuguese spelling since 1943, except in foreign and some personal and family names). The disease is known in Portuguese simply as rubéola, not as rubella (or even rubela), with major Portuguese-language dictionaries such as Houaiss or Aurélio also listing the rarely used synonyms sarampo alemão (literally, "German measles") and roséola epidêmica. --UrsoBR (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubella is a common childhood infection that can sometimes be fatal usually with minimal systemic upset..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.185.147 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Togaviridae, it says, “Diseases associated with this family include: Alphaviruses: arthritis, encephalitis; Rubiviruses: congenital rubella syndrome.” I think the words “congenital rubella syndrome” should be shortened to just “rubella”; any rubella virus infection may cause rubella, but only those in pregnant women, or women about to get pregnant, will cause CRS. It will be understood that “rubella” also means, by extension, CRS.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The derm/259 link in the fact box to the right is wrong. It goes to measles (rubeola) instead of to dermatology for rubella. The article it should refer to is the following, but I don't know how to find a link on the form derm/xxx for it. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1133108-overviewMick3 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it and fixed it. it's derm/380. Mick3 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the peds/2025 link in the fact box is dangling. It should probably go to the following page, but I don't know how to find a peds/XXX link for it. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/968523-overview Mick3 (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. It's ped/2025 rather than peds/2025. Mick3 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In one section it says....."During the epidemic in the U.S. between 1962–1965, rubella virus infections during pregnancy were estimated to have caused 30,000 stillbirths and 20,000 children to be born impaired or disabled as a result of CRS."

In a following section it says....."In the years 1964–65, the United States had an estimated 12.5 million rubella cases. This led to 11,000 miscarriages or therapeutic abortions and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. "

Which number of stillbirths etc is correct? 30,000 or 11,000? 96.40.115.189 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stillbirth and miscarriage are not the same thing. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I grew up in a time in the US when children suffered thru a series of "childhood" diseases: rubella, chicken pox, & mumps. It was an accepted fact of life, once contracted a person never came down sick with the illness, & AFAIK children rarely if ever died of them. (As barbaric as this might sound today, my generation at least did not have to fear contracting polio, as my mother's generation did.) One benefit of having rubella, I was told, is that the acquired immunity to re-contracting rubella also made one immune to the "hard" measles. (Likewise, IIRC contracting chicken pox made one immune to small pox.)

So is this a fact? If so, this article should include this. I suspect this is one reason rubella did not receive priority for prevention & cure. -- llywrch (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Chickenpox and smallpox are not even closely related viruses, smallpox in an orthopox virus and chickinpox is a herpes virus, same with measles and rubella, rubella is a togavirus while measles is a paramyxovirus, this sounds like a strange myth to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I remember being told, & it was common knowledge at the time; in fact I seem to remember seeing some of these assertions repeated in my grade school text books. The frustrating thing is that I had performed a Google search before posting & could find nothing about it. -- llywrch (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of such a thing and I am quite certain it is not true. I was an antivaxer for a time before I realized they were all wrong, and I am sure this would have been one of their talking points were it true but I never read or was told this anywhere. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]