Talk:Vacuum bell

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Vacuum Bell.jpg

Journal of Pediatric Surgery paper findings
Hi,

I've added detail to the sentence outlining the findings from this paper, specifically: The additions replace a sentence which simply stated the paper found the vacuum bell to be "excellent," which by itself is not an accurate representation of what the paper says.
 * that this was a single-center study
 * that the "excellent" correction was actually only achieved in 20% of patients in the study; and
 * To quote the first paragraph of the paper's discussion section: "Vacuum bell therapy offers patients and families options for nonoperative treatment of pectus excavatum. It is important to inform them that this is not a substitute for the Nuss procedure which can achieve an excellent result in over 90% of patients with one operation and minimal complications in a vast majority of patients"

Happy to discuss. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Promotional image
For the sake of discussion: There are two possible images for this article - one which shows the device, and another which has been repeatedly edit-warred back into the page by User:Ardovello, which shows the device as well as the name of a private company. Neither image is superior in terms of actual photography, but there is no need for a promotional image where a neutral one is available. In my view the current image should be preserved (ie the one without a free advert for a private company).

Appreciate this discussion is also at ANI, but if we establish an image consensus here, that consensus will also last longer than this current dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine for me, we should use an photo of an Eckart Klobe Vacuum Bell then, considering this is the only one with a FDA certification and proteted by a patent also, so both are not good

Also the user that uploaded that photo also iserted a link to his webstore where he sells his vacuum bell, that I removed, I only inserted a photo with a watermark to protect the intellectual propriety, there's no mention of the Brand in my photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardovello (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)