@IantheBFG yo this isn’t really a valid rejection reason, no one else even weighed in and no counter-rationale has been provided to address the rationale that WAS provided for the change.
AMBOSS article linked in rationale defines “immune thrombocytopenia: an autoimmune disorder characterized by isolated thrombocytopenia (< 100,000/mm3) with primary having no known precipitating cause while secondary has an identifiable trigger.”
Same article defines “Chronic ITP: ITP lasting > 12 months”
Doing an advanced search using “is defined as” specifically in the text field results in over 123 cards (102 notes).
This card is a complete definition of chronic ITP, follows definition provided by AMBOSS article in rationale, and follows format of other cards.
Searching all cards for the word “requires” gives 285 cards, but the issue raised is not how many other cards happen to have the same wording but whether the wording is appropriate for this card.
The AMBOSS text cited is exactly the problem I’m talking about. Having platelet levels below 100,000 for a year is NOT chronic ITP. It is chronic thrombocytopenia. Patients with liver disease, genetic thrombocytopenias like Wiskott-Aldrich, DiGeorge, general forms of immunosuppression might meet this definition without having ITP. ITP is ISOLATED thrombocytopenia WITH NO IDENTIFIED PRECIPITATING CAUSE (primary) or one of several specific causes (secondary).
This card therefore “defines” ITP without mentioning the isolated part of the thrombocytopenia or the qualification about the underlying cause, both of which are pretty relevant (per AMBOSS).
Now this is a rationale that makes sense and the original suggestion did not specify this portion where isolated thrombocytopenia was missing from definition.