Talk:Drug-eluting stent

Structure of this important piece
It would be valuable to maintain the credibility of this article, and prevent it turning into a battleground for highly polarized opinions, where editors stake out extreme positions ("CABG is superior to DES for two-vessel disease" -- NOT supported by the majority of clinical research nor by guidelines of the professional bodies) and inflammatory positions ("Legal status: As enthusiasm for these new devices abates...." -- has nothing to do with the "legal" status of the devices, either from a regulatory standpoint nor even from the POV of the plaintiffs' bar.)

It would be valuable to organize this in a rational way -- rather than jumping from history of balloon angioplasty, to pre-clinical investigational bioresorbable stents (in one edit, incorrectly headed as "drug elution"), to "alternative drugs", all before ever saying a word about the DES that are currently available for clinical use, and about which there are thousands of verifiable citations to substantiate a wiki article.

I have cleaned up the structure, written balanced positions on controversial topics, and attempted to restore a sense of decorum.

Nuff said. Debate welcomed here if someone disagrees with my edits. Donsmokem (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the page is reasonable tidy enough now to remove the cleanup and advert / coi tags. I agree with the material in the |last edit by Donsmokem that was reverted at 00:40, March 12, 2008 by Orangemarlin. The Percutaneous coronary intervention and Coronary stent pages could use work too. History of balloon angioplasty shouldn't be included on this page, it should be on one of the parent pages (probably PCI). Dlodge (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Marlin removed a particularly nice piece of the article under Alternatives:"                                                        Differences between outcomes with stenting and with coronary bypass grafting (CABG) are a point of controversy. Some studies suggest CABG is superior in multivessel (two or more diseased arteries) coronary artery disease (CAD) as regards a combined endpoint measure of death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. Other studies, including the ARTS II registry, suggest that drug-eluting stenting is not inferior to coronary bypass for treatment of multivessel coronary disease. In all comparison studies of stenting vs. bypass surgery, it is worth noting that only a small minority of patients with multivessel coronary disease have been eligible for inclusion in the studies, and that for most patients, clinical judgement by experienced operators suggests that one or the other approach is preferred."                                                               To that end, I have included it above to ask, why exactly that was a bad section? I think it is fairly NPOV, maybe even leaning towards anti-stents given the lack of a citation on the pro-stents end, so why was that removed?Merechriolus (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the deleted text back in modified form to balance the alternatives section - I didn't have time to look up the ARTS reference. There should also be some mention of medical management vs. DES here. Any objection to removing the COI / advert & cleanup tags? Dlodge (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * GA restructuring completed. BeingObjective (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Orangemarlin continues to revert and delete every contribution I have made towards neutrality, verifiability, and expertise on the subject. The "legal status" piece is particularly devoid of value. Could someone please guide me towards an appeal process? Donsmokem (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this revision of the piece restores the NPOV based on the consensus of Merechriolus and Dlodge. If there is a reason to revert and delete this work again, would the editor please address that reason here and attempt to shift consensus, rather than unilaterally making the change? Thank you. Donsmokem (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This reads NPOV. BeingObjective (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Orangemarlin re-applied the advert, clearup, and citation tags. Dlodge and I agree that they can be removed. Consensus? Donsmokem (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I will continue to do so. This piece is written by Cordis-JNJ.  Why else would it be so POV.  By the way, why would you think I'm not more or less as expert on this topic as you are?  In fact, I can guarantee that I am not only more expert, I am probably one of THE most expert on this topic.  Outside of this one article, which I only edit because I noticed so many Cordis IP addresses editing, I stay out of any Cardiology article specifically because I know too much and I would be too POV.  Finally, and if you would care, I'm trying to create a WP:MEDMOS for articles on medical devices.  A number of medical editors here wanted to use this as a sample article.


 * If you have a suggestion to create this article in a logical manner, then please go for it. You can read up on WP:MEDMOS which is a manner to standardize the article.  For example Legal Issues is just a placeholder name.  It can be regulatory, or anything else.


 * I want the tags to stay. On the other hand, you can find a way to make this article sound less like a JNJ advertisement, we can remove them..  That's all I'm asking.


 * I would ask that any further personal attacks against me end now.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV.
 * No edit wars - after so many years- the article is considered stable. BeingObjective (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No ad-hominem attacks here, orangefish. I'm sure you know something about the field. I do too, including as an editor of a high-impact journal in the field. I believe that it is free of pro-JNJ, pro-BSCI, pro-DES bias. If you could point to the word, words, lines, or concepts that sound to you like advertising, I am sure that the community of legitimate experts in the field will do something about it. Donsmokem (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't edit medical articles with POV pushers and those who engage in personal attacks. Please enjoy your editing.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...though you could be helpful and point out the statement in question, because this has caught my interest too.Merechriolus (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one else advocates for retaining the tags, then we ought to remove them. Donsmokem (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the revisions that Dlodge made to the "Alternatives" section. The structure seems basically sound to me. The stent thrombosis issue could be 10 pages long if editors wanted to expand it, but I think it's factual and neutral now. Citations still need a little clean-up, then it ought to stand as a Good Article. Donsmokem (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination
The majority of this article is written/edited by BeingObjective, but he is permanently banned, therefore I would nominate the article, as I also substantially contributed to the article, see https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Drug-eluting%20stent/ -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The reviewer abandoned this nomination. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)