AMBOSS says active lesions OR prodromal symptoms, though highlights active lesions. I’m ok with this change. Or “…HSV with active symptoms”
https://next.amboss.com/us/article/d40oRT#Z176d0ce8f5b34b467ead554aab4978f5
I also prefer “with active symptoms” for this reason
I changed it to this
@AnKing-Maintainers A few suggestions of this nature. Not sure why none were ever pushed?
“infected with HSV with active symptoms” Just sounds weird IMO 
What about:
What is the best mode of delivery for a pregnant patient with active HSV symptoms?
Search “hsv delivery” and this is dupe x2 (nid:1548594108466, nid:1520550073758)
Okay, so this made me wonder if “{{c2::after::before or after}} onset of labor, {{c3::before::before or after}} rupture of membranes” was really necessary?
The other cards just test on c-section. I did the UW and AMBOSS QID’s on all three cards and none of them require or even reference this timeline (they only test “C-section” ± antivirals). Also not on the AMBOSS article either.
I’m assuming the original source is BnB bc it’s the only other tag on this card.
@AnKing-Maintainers Are c2 & c3 even warranted??
I was asked this exact question during my rotation. I don’t know how important or common it is, but it certainly helped me
Maybe we should go with @joshuamb’s older suggestion?
Unfortunately, I’m not sure being pimped on something is grounds for it being on a card at all, let alone two clozes. (it may be worth adding to the extra of another card)
for now, I still stand by deleting the card entirely.
Might still be worth updating though, even if we later delete it
It’s not a ground, for sure. However, just because it’s not covered in UW or AMBOSS doesn’t justify deleting the card, especially since it can be helpful on the wards. Many cards in the deck don’t directly relate to specific questions anyway
I double checked this with UTD, and the information is correct, so I don’t see a reason to delete it. People can simply suspend it if they don’t find it useful (I suspended around 900 cards from the deck, which I believe are more deserving of deletion than this one)
@AnKing-Maintainers I updated the wording of the suggestion. I would love to get some more likes and finally push this, since we’ve gotten a few suggestions about fixing it
Let me know if you have an issue with it, but I think it’s a good solution, and incorporates feedback from this thread (@Jwill) as well as other open suggestions from @cardamomo and @joshuamb
I wasn’t saying it has to relate to a specific practice QID. My original question was:
And no one has offered up any information from any of our accepted board sources (UTD is not).
I’m not saying it’s not accurate.
I’m not saying it’s not helpful in the “real world”.
I’m asking “Is this needed in our BOARD PREP deck?”
If the answer is yes than awesome. Why?
I’m just asking for an accepted (or the original) source given I checked the ones I could and couldn’t find it.
Not trying to start, or asking for a debate. Just trying to source the card for relevance.
I’ve added it to the dupe sheet so I’m in favor of pushing this suggestion and rejecting the other two for the queue purposes and address the dupes later.
This suggestion will be pushed and the others rejected. Definitely lets circle back soon to look at dupe consolidation.
FWIW regarding the c2 & c3 debate, I think both of you make valid points! I lean more towards keeping them for the typical reasons, but yes, perhaps they would have been better left unclozed or confined to Extra when the card was originally made. Definitely worthy of a closer look with a different suggestion, as I’m sure others will have their own opinions as well.
The one thing that’s clear is how much we all care about making these cards the best they can be! Even if we sometimes disagree as to what that looks like, we’re united in that common goal, and I love that 