Talk:Sputum

Side links

Spanish link is not right, it does not go to "Esputo" (Sputum) but to "Expectorar" (Spitting). I tried to fix it but I couldn´t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.231.131.49 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I

I don't yet know the correct way to add references. If someone else wants to fix this before I do, the story about Katie Couric slapping a colleague for saying "sputum" is in this AP article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900613.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/entertainmentnews

All references to this should be removed as the article is no longer a valid link.NH

Languagues?

I'm sure there are other languages of this article, for example, Chinese... http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%97%B0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.166.224 (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub

I agree that this article is a stub. How can experts be drawn here to edit this page? ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Other

Could this be improved by adding photos, (yes,yes 'icky') I ask because I have bronchitis at least a couple of times a year, and am fortunate enough to have miserable allergies while living in a desert climate-plenty of opportunties to catch the perfect shot. Also, should the phenomena of different infectious organisms causing different colors be added; and should this have a link to 'biofilm'? If these were troll-like comments-I apologize. Newbie: Bite if you must, but my ears are tender!!!!!!!LeeRamsey (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a good digital photo of your sputum and upload it. Then consider yourself the author of the work. H Padleckas (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone has done it already. Here is a photo called Image:Phlegm.jpg :

Contradictory information

I was directed here from the article on "Phlegm." That article states that sputum is phlegm that has been expectorated, and also that mucus and phlegm are not the same thing. This article begins by stating that sputum is mucus. There is a contradiction here. 167.206.122.66 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears as if this has been fixed. H Padleckas (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence states that "sputum is mucus that is coughed up," but the phlegm page states that "Once phlegm has been expectorated by a cough it becomes sputum" and that "Contrary to popular misconception and misuse, mucus and phlegm are not always the same." This makes me think the first line should state that "sputum is phlegm that is coughed up." PSimeon (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Why the photo is not appearing in the template? --Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proper citing

I made an edit to properly quote a copyrighted work (the text was cited, but not properly quoted despite being word for word from the cite). While the text is useful, I suspect it seems really odd being quoted like such (though I believe not properly quoting it counts as plagiarism) and I want to suggest that it is re-worded so that it does not need to be a quote, but also does not plagiarize the cited text. I would do this myself, however I lack sufficient knowledge on the topic to feel comfortable making the change (though it seems simple enough that I could). Of course, if the quote is in fact appropriate, then I suspect it is fine as is. Thanks! Dckirker (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alarmist

This article lists a set of possible colors of sputum, and every color listed is presented as being symptomatic of some problem. On the other hand, the article on phlegm states that "The body naturally produces one US quart (0.95 litres) of phlegm every day to capture and clear substances in the air and bacteria from the nose and throat" and "Once phlegm has been expectorated by a cough, it becomes sputum". If these latter statements are accurate, it might be responsible to outline what colors of sputum are *not* particularly concerning in and of themselves - or under what other conditions the presence of sputum need not be a source of concern. Right now, the article reads like a hypochondriac's dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.102.222 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! There should be some sort of preamble about how sputum is typically used in modern medicine. Also, each "diagnosis" should be followed with, "... or could be perfectly normal." B9 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

"Description" is not

The section entitled "Description" doesn't describe "sputum". Instead it leaps directly into what makes a "good sample."

As a reader, I was hoping for a clear description of what sputum is beyond the general introductory sentence. Please help this article by adding a real Description that answers some basic questions:

• What are the important properties of sputum?

• How do people normally become aware of / see / interact with sputum?

• When not just calling attention — ahem! — would it be fair to say that "to clear one's throat" means to dislodge sputum from the windpipe?

• Is all mucus that is coughed up "sputum" (for example, mucus produced in the sinuses which has run down the throat from postnasal drip)?

• Does the more common word "phlegm" mean the same thing as "sputum"? If so, is the word "phlegm" used in modern medical terminology, or is it (like "catarrh") left to common folk, poets, and outmoded medical practices?

____

As for the discussion of the qualities of a "good sputum samples", if it is to be kept, it needs context: how sputum normally comes out, what a "sputum sample" is, who would want to take a sample and why and how. Also, I suggest moving it to a section other than Description. B9 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)