User talk:Sheddan alexander

Pyloric stenosis
Hi there Sheddan, I noticed some of the edits you made on this page and I thought we should discuss them on the article's talk page. I think it would be advisable for you to read WP:MEDRS if you haven't since the sources you are adding to support the content you're adding are old and primary in nature (note that the overwhelming preference is in favor of newer secondary sources). If you have concerns about this, let's discuss them on the pyloric stenosis talk page. Thanks :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tyler,

Point taken. The problem is that there is no credible explanation for the occurrence of pyloric stenosis and the hypothesis I propose is credible and, as you say, is evidenced from primary material which is not recent but which strangely has been ignored. The article by me in Acta Paediatrica this month(december) under short communications has been cited ISSN 0803-5253  2014:103 pp.e558-e560. It is sad to relate but true that modern articles primary and secondary do no more than roll out the old chestnuts of the clinical features. There appears to be no discernible attempts to relate the curious clinical features into a credible explanation of causation. The evidenced articles (and book) does this and I believe it will enhance the Wikipedia content if included.

Over to you.(Sheddan alexander (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)).

Ian
 * I understand your concerns, but there are rules/policies/guidelines that sometimes restrict the content that can be added to medical articles on Wikipedia. We have to do our best to reflect what the high-quality mainstream medical literature states and since it is an evolving thing (the literature that is), if recent secondary sources such as review articles do not seem to address the issues you are concerned with, papers in the future might. Newer editions of high-quality textbooks would also be considered a reliable resource if the literature does not discuss this in adequate detail so that is something to consider. Can you clarify what discussion is not taking place in the literature that you would like to have in the article? Is it the pathophysiology of pyloric stenosis? If so, I'm sure I could refer you to some accessible and high-quality sources. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tyler, Thank you for your comments .I quite understand. The immediate surgical relief of pyloric stenosis is one of the most satisfying operations that a paediatric surgeon can do. They do not want to give it up.The primary hyperacidity theory of pathophysiology- if true, and I believe it to be true- logically would mean that early cases of pyloric stenosis would best be treated medically i.e with a short period of H2 blockers such as ranitidine. The surgeons are mainly those who currently deal with this problem and, being human, have a certain resistance to the promulgation of this theory of pathogenesis. It has been a protracted struggle and I fear I may lose the battle!

Ian

Recent edit to Pyloric stenosis
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pyloric stenosis, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! JustBerry (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)