Talk:Vasodilatory shock

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

About the mortality issue[edit]

About the mortality,the "Prognosis" in the infobox said "Higher than 50% mortality rate within a month", and the Prognosis section said "Refractory shock has an all-cause mortality rate greater than 50% within a month". The reference is Outcome of patients with septic shock and high-dose vasopressor therapy.

It seems to be about Septic shock, instead of Vasodilatory shock. Is it ok to be a reference of mortality of Vasodilatory shock?--Wolfch (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because MedlinePlus Health topic or work from National Health Institute are in public domain. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information on the NHLBI website is in the public domain and can be used without restriction. The NHLBI asks only that no changes be made to the publications, videos, images, or other formatted multimedia products and that the material, as well any NHLBI webpage links, not be used in any direct or indirect product endorsement or advertising.There are a few exceptions. For example, some resources, such as some images on the NHLBI website, have been licensed by a third party and are restricted in their use. Generally, copyrighted materials will include a copyright statement. If in doubt, please write to the contact for that site.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/contact/trademark-branding-and-logo --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]