This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
In spite of the fact that sections of this article were from NIH, they were copyrighted; see the bottom of the NIH page [1]: "Copyright 2005, A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited." See also the copyright faq [2]
I modified the opening line, and deleted the other sections that were in violation, leaving the heading tags in hope that this will soon be restored to its former glory. DDerby 01:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We should really change the information under causes, it's completely innapropriate, not to mention, it doesn't state the causes.
I decided to change the current information under causes: "stinking ithchy skin, u got it........... wash ur nuts and keep them clean and dry" to some more general causes.
Currently, this section says that, "Some other contributing fungi are Candida albicans...", yet in the introduction it says, "Tinea cruris is similar to, but different from Candidal intertrigo, which is an infection of the skin by Candida albicans.". I'm not an expert and therefore cannot tell whether C. Albicans infection is distinct from or a possible cause of Tinea Cruris, but this contradiction makes me wonder whether some parts of this article are as accurate as they should be.146.199.57.179 (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a nasty case of this recently, and I applied witch hazel to the affected region. Stang a bit, but my god did it get rid of it quickly. Can anyone comment why the use of astringent could have been so effective?
I did something similar recently. It was bothering me badly at work last week and in the bathrooms we have alcohol-based hand sanitizer solution dispensors. I took a squirt of that and spread it around. It stung like hell for a few seconds but when the pain was over the itch was gone and didn't come back. I'm thinking in both cases it just killed the fungus abruptly. --71.111.12.217 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second this motion. It might seem redundant for a affliction called "Jock Itch", but itches can have different causes. I'd add it myself but I don't think I know.
I believe the fungus can thrive on any area of the body. Besides topical salves and sprays, there are a couple of pills that can get rid of the infection.
True, but the name of the article refers to a fungal infection of that area, and is not the name of the fungus itself. See ringworm, especially the "types" section. 76.202.58.16821:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You hear these terms used all the time, I hardly think a citation in necessary. Next, should I need to cite my birth certificate every time I write my full name? When does it stop? Stovetopcookies03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The line "Don't remove this last line, because it is true,even though the drug companies might not like it!" is a proof by assertion. Furthermore, claiming that there is a government/corporate conspiracy to suppress a particular area of research is a hallmark of crackpots. That's not to say that there aren't cases of corporate conspiracies covering up science, but, in the general case, it is more probable that the accuser is selling us some kind of snake-oil. What I am getting at is, if it has "been proven to kill the fungus completely," then the part in parenthesis is unnecessary, and we should cite a peer-reviewed study where this effect was demonstrated, otherwise it sounds no better than all of the other "natural remedies" that people try to sell you.
I removed the statement about the corticosteroid being unnecessary as i have had this fungus before on two occasions and both times was prescribed a drug containing a corticosteroid and clotrimazalon in a combination cream. Not only does the steroid get rid of the itching, redness, and swelling almost the day after applying it, it had no ill side effects with my use. Upon further reading in the packet that came with the prescription it said that the cream with the corticosteroid was show in clincal studies to be at least as effective as the cream with only clotrimazalon and that it had a low chance of side effects in most cases. To agree with the change, a slight change to some of the sentences in the paragraph were changed.
I think the article is confusing treating with preventing further occurrences. Steroids used alone almost inevitably worsen fungal infections. Anti-fungals alone will kill off fungi, but may take such a long time to prove effective that further skin damage/irritation is caused in the meantime as the patient continues to scratch the area (this both leaves the patient with prolonged discomfort and risks secondary bacterial infection). Hence a non-itchy rash only requires an anti-fungal, but if very itchy the combination (anti-fungal plus steroid) both speedily settles the irritation as well as killing of the fungi. Fungal spores can persist for some time, so generally anti-fungal creams need be continued after the rash has apparently resolved (e.g. extra 10 days with Miconazole after rash settled, giving a total treatment course of generally about 2-3 weeks).
For prevention, steroids are not required long-term - if the fungal infection has not fully eradicated by the treatment phase, then steroids alone will promote the remaining fungi back to a full outbreak. Long-term steroids used "routinely" result in thinning of the skin (atrophy), and such (past) inappropriate use led to much of the fear patients now expresses about "dangerous" steroid cream use. Prevention by definition implies no current fungi (else not being prevented) and is surely more about hygiene, keeping the skin dry and with good air flow (i.e. loose clothing)... David RubenTalk01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it could help some one as it did for me. After shower rinse yourself with vinegar solution (60 ml of 5% distilled vinegar to 500ml boiled and chilled water). Leave it on your body and while wet rub it everywhere - specially your affected areas and feet. It is very good for your hair too - just keep your eyes shut:). Dry yourself in clean towel. Don't be afraid of the smell - it will disappear as soon as you get dry. After few days you will be living a new life! It is all abut pH of your skin. Skin can defend itself it just needs some little help to restore pH.
Wash your towels and underwear, socks(any laundry) using 60ml of 5% white distilled vinegar instead of fabric conditioner for final rinse. Have fun! P.S. I have tried most over the counter medicine to no avail and could no believe that solution can be so cheep and simple from kitchen shelf .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.66.232 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mayo Clinic and emedicine.com, Tinea species are the most likely cause of "jock itch", not trychophyton.
Tinea is not a species of fungus, it is a medical term for fungal infection of the skin. The funguses that cause tinea are called dermatophytes, Trychophyton and Microsporum are the most common dermatophytes. There are many species of both Trychophyton and Microsporum, some species live primarily in the environment, some on various animals, and some primarily live on humans. The mayo clinic articles are not clear about this. Medline has it just plain wrong. The wikipedia articles are pretty much on spot though 74.71.240.3804:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a medical article, surely it is incorrect to use the lay-term 'jock itch' rather than the correct medical term 'tinea cruris' in the title, especially as the article then gives symptoms/signs, diagnosis, treatment in the style of a medical article. I feel that the use of jock itch is no more scientific than using crotch rot as the title. I suggest the jock itch term is removed from the title and replaced with 'tinea cruris', and a redirect added for a jock itch search.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.44.214 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 June 2007
Agree - and this is general policy for medical topics, see the guideline WP:MEDMOS "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term or a historical eponym that has been superseded". In UK alternative terms for use by GPs (as given by NHS READ codes) are also "Dermatophytosis of groin and perineal area" (AB03) or "Dhobie itch" (AB03-1) (Tinea cruris has code AB03-2 meaning it too is a synonym in the READ code system for the main AB03 code "Dermatophystosis..."). But yes the accepted general medical term is Tinea Cruris, and this is as per ICD10 naming. As per the WP:MEDMOS guideline, page to be moved.David RubenTalk13:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The slang American English expression "jock itch" is not used in the UK, so I have added the common British term " scrot rot" in the first para. Although "scrot rot" is obviously not a medical term, its presence in the article may help people searching for information on the condition (the majority of people who are not medically trained will not know the correct medical term). I, for one, searched for "scrot rot" and came up with nothing.Sabremesh (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be under the wrong name so please feel free to correct
Well I have been suffering with this condition for most of my life. It has taken me nearly 35 yaers to identify that Ginger enhances this and I suffer weekly with this.... or should I say it never goes away only shows less. I will add a photo at a later stage including a listing of all creams that I have used. I have been so desperate that I evenused yoghurt which eased the itch for a day or so but it still remains... has any one got any ideas as this is driving me nuts.... I have used all kinds of different materials and fodds and all and found that Ginger id the cause.
I have tried Tinactin Ointment (Tolfnaftate), Lotrimin AF (clotimazole), and now Lamisil (Terbafine)......none of them seem to be very effective anymore, although Tinactin used to work for me in the past. I am going to return to a product I used years ago that was always effective, although it burns slightly for a few minutes when applied, and is getting hard to find. That product contains Undecylenic Acid, and currently I have only found it as "TINEACIDE" , by "Dr. Blaine's", available at Wal-Mart. Keeping the area dry is important, and washing off the old accumulated ointment layer is important. I suspect that once the active ingredient wears off, the ointment layer can become a carrier for live fungus, allowing it to re-infect the skin.
Using a soap that is too basic (too high a pH, > 8) may encourage the growth of this stuff.
Does this condition cause loss of the affected region's hair as well? Both of the photos currently in the article suggest it, but I'm not sure if the area was shaved to present a clearer photo of the discolouration. If anybody knows the detail on this, maybe it would be useful to include, for clarification. 24.222.251.111 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just adjusted some capitalisation in this article, but I’m ready to be corrected by others who know medical convention better. I left binomial names with an initial capital as they should have, but a few minutes' research and also references at the end of this article seem to indicate that names of diseases should not be capitalised. If I’m wrong, someone please correct this – but don’t undo my change as there are other corrections/additions that I made.
Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"fungal infection of the groin region in any sex", yet there is nothing under Symptoms and signs about how it looks in women.
BTW, does anyone read these talk pages :-) ?
Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Spel-Punc-Gram Some people do my friend, but not quite enough :) I've checked the signs an symptoms and they apply to both sexes as far as I know, except that the fungal infection will tend to be more severe due to the propensity of this area to accumulate moisture. Tinss (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a picture on commons that exemplifies rather well what tinea cruris is, a fungus that predominantly affects the groin region in males. However, a stranger has objectioned to this choice of image:
(Undid revision 780285873 by Tinss (talk)Find a picture of this disease that does NOT include the cock and balls of some total stranger. Google finds lots of better pics - get a CC license for 1 of those)
For fear of starting an edit war, I'll defer to the opinion of others.
leave the article without an image until a better one is found;
IMO the image under discussion is not detailed enough to provide adequate identification of the infection, compared to any other particular fungal infection. As such, it does not warrant inclusion over the reasonable objections based on content. In other words, if the only available image with enough detail to significantly add to the informative content of this article, and which could not be cropped, contained genitalia, then it would be appropriate to include. This does not meet that standard. It's just a picture of a guys crotch with a rash, any rash. Bobsd (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobsd, after some review of the literature, I still think the image is a very good example of tinea cruris as it fits both medical descriptions and specimens in my textbooks. From DermIS]:
Superficial fungus infection of the groins, mainly caused by E. floccosum, T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes. Infection may be transmitted by clothing, sheets, or towels. Autoinfection from the foot to the groin is also common. The lesions in the early stages are erythematous arciform plaques with sharp margins extending from the groin down the thighs. The colour may vary from red to brown, central clearing may be present, and a vesiculopustular border may be noted. Itching is a predominant feature, scaling is variable.
The pictures from DermNet are also very telling. What do you think about cropping the image to exclude as much as the genitalia as possible and then blurring out what remains? Tinss (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinss, if you feel this is representative of the infection, then your suggestion is a good compromise. I speak from my preference that Wikipedia should be accessible to all ages, so where possible, unexpectedly explicit images should be included only as needed to further the informational content of the article. I would expect to see a penis in the article on penis. (And after seeing the spine-covered penis of Callosobruchus analis,(a bean weevil) on that page, anything else is positively Disneyesque.)
Tinea cruris (cropped version)Done. I've modified the previous image by cropping out as much as possible and blurring out what remained of the scrotum. Tinss (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the information about the "similar" infection, Candidal intertrigo, which was taking up more space in the introduction that the infection the article was about, leading to a possible confusion regarding the agent causing Tinea cruris. Moved it down to diagnosis, since it was mostly a comparison which is part of diagnosis. Bobsd (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version cited the paper named "Tinea Cruris in Women: Bothersome but Treatable", US Pharmacist. 2005;30(8) without a hyperlink. I tried to google it and there were a very few results with this citation, but not the paper itself. Now, this is the paper that does exist: "Tinea Cruris in Men: Bothersome But Treatable", US Pharmacist. 2005;30(9) https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/512992 It seems like someone just changed its title and the issue number to come up with a non-existent source. I don't know why they may need to do this, but I removed this source. You can cite the real paper if you want. Rotatoria (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
