Talk:AutoPulse

Adding references from peer reviewed literature
This reference from the AutoPulse website cannot be located in PubMed:
 * Ikeno F et al. "Improved survival with a novel chest compression device during a porcine model of cardiac arrest." Circulation, 108(17)(Suppl IV):381

I am assuming the year of this supplement is 2003 (strangely, several of the references on the website do not include the year). A little help? MoodyGroove 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Evidence class
You want to talk about it? Okay - what exactly is the point in having a list of all the evidence classifications? If we put one of those at the top of every medical article, it would look silly: a description of the level that it was assigned is all that is required, surely? --John24601 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is to provide context. There's no reason it shouldn't be near the top of any medical article to which it pertains, particularly in the era of evidence based medicine. To indicate that the device has a Class IIb rating without providing a key to the classification scheme is too ambiguous for a scientific article. If you're hung up on the format, I am willing to consider creating an infobox, wiki-table, or separate article that explains the classification system. But by dissecting it from the article, you did not make the article more encyclopedic, but less so. Similarly, the comment about survival to hospital discharge being the gold standard of resuscitation research is important to the section on clinical trials. I can reword it (although "fools gold" was a direct quote) but it should not be removed because it provides valuable context for understanding the significance of clinical trials. Prior to that explanation, this article gave undue weight to animal studies and read like an advertisement for the company. MoodyGroove 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * I don't see that providing a list of all the evidence classifications provides context - providing details of the class it is actually assigned (which I did) does, and is useful, but directly quoting all the others is pointless: a link to another article explaining it (what is the name of this scale? I've seen various similar ones) may be justified, but copying the whole thing out is not. I have to admit I was probably a bit hasty with the other one, "fools gold" made me see red, but I'm also not sure that we need to teach people how to interpret research. --John24601 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Providing the complete scale (I'm not sure what to name it just yet) provides context for a Class IIb recommendation the same way providing a range provides context in mathematics. Consider the conservation status of an animal species. It's helpful to know that vulnerable is between threatened and endangered. So I disagree that it's pointless. A Wikipedia article should be reasonably self contained (i.e., comprehensible by itself without significant reading of other articles). It should also be precise and have a neutral point of view. This article did not provide enough context for the studies it was citing. I'm not sure why you have a problem with teaching people how to interpret resuscitation research, providing that it's done in a logical and well referenced manner. Resuscitation research is prone to misunderstanding, even amongst medical professionals, who sometimes get caught up in the hype or their own anecdotal experience. The AutoPulse is a very expensive device, and only one side of the story was being told in this article. If we're going to lay out the studies referenced on the company's website (that are presented as overwhelmingly positive) then it's only fair to present the issue of survival to hospital discharge. That helps helps vitiate the undue weight given to the animal trials and explains why the results of the ASPIRE trial were problematic. Again, the goal here is scientific accuracy. If that means explaining how experts regard the signigicance of clinical trials, then I have no problem with that. Regards, MoodyGroove 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * I have replaced the questionable content with a highlighted wiki-table. It's more discrete, and I think it's an improvement. Feel free to comment. MoodyGroove 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

No longer advised as default? Use of such devices highlighted in article about medic reversals.
Research published here: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub3 was included as one of many instances where research indicated prior practices were incorrect, as published here: https://elifesciences.org/articles/45183#bib11 I'll leave any edits to those better able to judge importance. I will say, however, that the research section reads a bit like an ad for the device. Fitzhugh (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Typo. Medical reversal. Fitzhugh (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)