see the previous suggestion on this card. dollajas’ concern was that the suggestion made the card too difficult, but yours is better. I’ll copy and paste another comment as well.
other comment: ‘ive thought about the quality of this card too. i think one option is to omit the cutaneous eruptions part and say something like: “…{{c1::skin}} lesions such as subcutaneous nodules, livedo reticularis, ulcers, or gangrene in up to 1/3 of patients”. Alternatively, you could cloze the higher yield skin lesions if you wanted. Also worth noting that some scholarly papers say the lesions are most commonly seen on the lower limbs, which could also be added to the card/extras field. (UpToDate)’
agree this spoils somewhat, maybe just remove “(e.g. cutaneous eruptions)” altogether? - or does that make it too ambiguous? extras already clarifies what types of lesions so I dont think cutaneous eruptions actually adds much here
when we start having these discussions @Joe @Alex is a great time to evaluate if the yield of the card is worth the battle you will fight trying to make it testable. the answer quickly becomes no here, and these types of cards are appropriate for “face value recall” - just looking at it and saying okay. /thread