Talk:Atrial fibrillation

Diagnosis
I am not sure everything needs to be attributed to someone and we can just state much uncontroversial stuff as fact.

For example "A diagnosis of AF may be suspected by feeling the pulse and confirm by an electrocardiogram (ECG)"

Rather than "A healthcare professional diagnoses AF by feeling the pulse and may confirm the diagnosis by using an electrocardiogram (ECG)."

Keeps things shorter and more to the point. User:TylerDurden8823 your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really a very small difference in length the way I rewrote it and it's still quite to the point. Most style guides recommend writing most things in the active voice. It's just better writing, James. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally try to avoid writing "patient" and "healthcare professional" as we are trying not to write for either pts or healthcare providers specifically. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine. We don't use the word patient in that sentence. I don't see the problem with writing healthcare professional since they are the ones qualified to make such diagnoses so I'm not sure why we would avoid that terminology. I don't see it as particularly problematic to say healthcare professionals as a catchall term since some primary care providers are NPs, PAs, etc. It would be overly restrictive and inaccurate to just say doctors. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 Per this "Healthcare professionals diagnose AF by feeling the pulse and may confirm the diagnosis by using an electrocardiogram (ECG)." The diagnosis is just suspected based on feeling the pulse.. So should be "Healthcare professionals may suspect AF during feeling the pulse and confirm the diagnosis by using an electrocardiogram (ECG)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think "can" is needed in "can confirm"... We can simple say "and confirm the diagnosis by an electrocardiogram (ECG)." The professional does not use the ECG but simple orders it and a take does the procedure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as you said, the diagnosis is suspected by palpating the pulse. The ECG may (or may not) confirm that suspicion. That's why it's worded that way. Sometimes the irregular pulse the provider palpates may not end up being atrial fibrillation. Don't you think this is starting to get a little bit nitpicky over one word? It's really not going to make a significant difference when it comes to length. I'm not sure what you mean that providers don't use the ECG. Every physician I know interprets their own ECGs unless they're very tricky. Are you referring to ECG techs or something? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you are referring to ECG techs. I've adjusted the wording to reflect that providers interpret the ECGs since they generally don't perform the actual ECG procedure and leave that to the techs. The can thing is not important enough to quibble over so I've adjusted it. It's just not that important. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Did I fix vandalism?
"The risk of stroke from non-valvular AF can be estimated using". I unlinked it. Did I do right? Also, what *is* that? Vandalism? And how did it link to *anything*? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede image
Concerning this edit responding to a request for an image change, there may be a case for presenting an ECG displaying just the absence of P waves (top) and a higher heart rate as two main clinical markers of Afib. I suggest this image be used to replace the current one. Zefr (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember previous discussions have cropped up on  WT:MED  regarding the sourcing requirements of illustrations which seems to be of concern to the IP user. However, I would support the proposed replacement. CV9933 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)