An emergency department visit, described afterwards posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Reporting here and reporting to a national scheme are not alternatives. The second is what feeds safety surveillance.
Practical answer on emergency department visit, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
Adding the measurement that post #32 says would settle it.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a completed account: what happened, what was done, and what the outcome was.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
Post #34 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
One more thing on emergency department visit that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Signs of dehydration after repeated vomiting are the most common serious secondary problem described here and are also the most preventable.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
I read post #39 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
If someone has run emergency department visit properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
Narrowing post #39, because the general version has more than one answer.
The most useful reply I ever got about emergency department visit was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Since emergency department visit keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
I read post #43 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Attribution is genuinely hard for a single case and the reporting schemes are designed to work with that. You are not expected to prove causation to file.
Post #43 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Checked the emergency department visit claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Nothing here is medical advice, and in this subcategory the phrase is doing more work than in any other on the site.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.
Adding a reference point for emergency department visit. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Post #50 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Reporting here and reporting to a national scheme are not alternatives. The second is what feeds safety surveillance.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Signs of dehydration after repeated vomiting are the most common serious secondary problem described here and are also the most preventable.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Gallbladder symptoms during rapid weight loss are described in this class and are also associated with rapid weight loss generally. Both can be true.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Worth separating two things that post #56 runs together.
Injection-site reactions that spread over a day or come with systemic symptoms are a different observation from ordinary local reactions.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
Where I part company with post #56, and it is a narrow parting.
Practical experience of emergency department visit, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.