Talk:Burn

Source for Classification of Burns

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P09575

URMC / Encyclopedia / Classification of Burns

Classification of Burns

What are the classifications of burns?

Burns are classified as first-, second-, or third-degree, depending on how deep and severe they penetrate the skin's surface.

   First-degree (superficial) burns. First-degree burns affect only the epidermis, or outer layer of skin. The burn site is red, painful, dry, and with no blisters. Mild sunburn is an example. Long-term tissue damage is rare and usually consists of an increase or decrease in the skin color.

   Second-degree (partial thickness) burns. Second-degree burns involve the epidermis and part of the dermis layer of skin. The burn site appears red, blistered, and may be swollen and painful.

   Third-degree (full thickness) burns. Third-degree burns destroy the epidermis and dermis and may go into the subcutaneous tissue. The burn site may appear white or charred

   Fourth degree burns. Fourth degree burns also damage the underlying bones, muscles, and tendons. There is no sensation in the area since the nerve endings are destroyed.

Medical Reviewers:

   Berry, Judith, PhD, APRN
   Mancini, Mary, MD

bobdog54 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The classification of burns

http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=classification-of-burns-90-P09575&sid= http://www.medstudentlc.com/page.php?id=84 All those sources contradict the 6 degree classification of burns. The article should be updated to include only the 4 degrees of burns. 5.15.11.169 (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)GigiComa

It looks like those sources are wrong. Perhaps I should say "incomplete" instead of "wrong". PMID 8064911 and medical textbooks talk about fifth- and sixth-degree burns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Work needed?

Burns are fairly frequent, so the big question becomes: How can we change this article in such a way that it is actually useful, and presents the subject in easy-to-understand language. Note that the corresponding enwp article is flagged as "good article", which is probably a good start. So what can/should we do here? --Eptalon (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)