Talk:Negative pressure ventilator

Re-establishing this as separate topic from "Iron lung"
As the references cited in the text clearly document, not all "negative pressure ventilators" (NPVs) are "iron lungs". Yet this page was, before today, redirected to "Iron lung." That has been corrected.

This topic is now a separate topic, but lists, summarizes, and links to "Iron lung" -- and similarly lists other NPVs, as well.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ref cite to Pulmotor blog article, valid & appropriate
The following reference to a blog article is not entirely inconsistent with WP:SOURCES, because it is an exceptionally well detailed and illustrated reference on the Pulmotor, apparently published by a licensed respiratory therapist, professionally certified in this field. His article is about the Pulmotor, an item out-of-production for decades on which there is little available online material (beyond what is in his article) in any one place, and his article is consistent with the bits of info scattered across various other traditional sources. Finally, the age of the item (1920s-1940s) makes it unlikely that he would have a conflict-of-interest at stake. See:
 * (ref name="first_mechanical_ventilator_2017_bottrell") Bottrell, John, (registered respiratory therapist), "1907: The first mechanical ventilator: The Pulmotor," April 19, 2017, Asthma History blog, retrieved April 12, 2020.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Advantages & disadvantages: ref cites
In the section "Advantages & disadvantages", the bullet points are "double-cited", so to speak, because of the importance to the text of identifying in the text the sources cited and their dates -- because part of the point of the section is to show that there is NOT clear, continuous consensus on the pros and cons of NPVs, explicitly noting the diverse separate sources, and dates, to demonstrate the conflicting and evolving assertions.

Note, too, that the extreme shortage of information and research on negative-pressure ventilation (largely abandoned by the 1970s) makes it necessary to include the few solid treatises scattered over a wide range of dates. In fact, the oldest of these (Grum & Morganroth, 1988; Sheerson 1991) are the most thorough and informative of the cited sources. Further, it is easily argued that the older material is probably produced by authors, and in the context of research and clinical operating environments, far more familiar with (now-"obsolete") negative pressure ventilation than the authors writing about it today.

Consequently, as published research gets farther and farther from the era that negative-pressure ventilation was in common, frequent, and long-term, use, the newer research becomes, arguably, more and more derivative and anecdotal, and less and less reliable.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Agomezgarcia (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)