Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force/Archive 1

Ugh
I'd like to say that it was very kind of you all to create this task force so that I would have a specific place to moan about Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, which is in a pretty wretched state. I've done some formatting clean up, but more needs to be done, and then someone will have to address the overreliance on external links to content instead of presenting the actual content. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month
Craig Hicks (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT
You may want to get involved in the categorization of cardiology-related pharmacology, which is occuring now at WP:PHARM:CAT. See that talk page for more information. kilbad (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Added Postcardiotomy syndrome
Justed wanted to let you know I added an article stub on Postcardiotomy syndrome in case you want to categorize and assess it. kilbad (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Heart_normal.svg has a messed up gradient in the left ventricle
It's easy enough to fix, but I don't see how to upload the change. There should be a "Upload a new version of this file" link.

Niels Olson (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of Dale Dubin
Greetings, project participants. I created this stub on Dale Dubin, MD which I believe was wrongly deleted. As medicine enthusiasts, I believe you are best suited to judge its merits. Please take a moment to review it and comment here. Thanks - Draeco (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neurocardiology?
Congrats on this task force. I came here through reading the Neurocardiology article, which was surprisingly short of content, given what an exciting topic it appears to be. Is there any way to encourage experts to come and expand upon it? --Brian Fenton (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Embolectomy

 * Low importance

Hey! I don't suppose you guys could have a look at Embolectomy and how the pages that link to it do so (there are quite a few), it could do with some application of knowledge, which I unfortunately do not have :-/ Regards,  Captain n00dle  T/C 12:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cardiac Skeleton
The following pages all pertain to to the cardiac skeleton:


 * Fibrous rings of heart
 * Fibrous trigone
 * Cardiac skeleton
 * Collagen Medical Uses

As they all relate to the cardiac skeleton, they should probably be merged into one article, but I just wanted to see what all of you had to say before I did anything major. Ronk01 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

requested article
There is some scientific literature that suggests that an abnormal spatial QRS-T angle is supposed to have independent predictive power for sudden cardiac death,  so I requested an article on the spatial QRS-T angle about 2 years ago. If you do write such an article, please use language accessible to a lay audience. Thank you. 72.83.203.53 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blood flow
This article has been completely rewritten from April 11th onwards, and now seems to contain much irrelevant material. Expert attention needed? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

About the Myocarditis article.
Hi. I am not a member of WikiProject Medicine, but I think you are, so you're the right people to ask:

Myocarditis says: "Myocarditis refers to an underlying process that causes inflammation and injury of the heart. It does not refer to inflammation of the heart as a consequence of some other insult."

Is the word "Insult" right under that context? I can't tell because I've got no medical knowledge, but it sure seems odd, so I thought I should tell you in case it's a mistake.

Thanks a lot. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Insult is used in the sense of damage in medicine so its ok, albeit perhaps not that accessible to a lay reader. Adh (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Isochrone map
Hi. Isochrone map includes my layman's interpretation. If anyone here can clarify things, please do. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Heart image donation from Blausen
Hi all, I recently helped to upload a donation of 20 heart-related illustrations by Blausen Medical (commons:Category:Images from Blausen Medical Communications). I've been inserting them into articles where they seem to help, such as atherectomy, but for some articles that already have many images to choose from, I could use your help in determining whether Blausen's images are useful. Please take a look at: Please also feel free to use the images in any other suitable articles that I may have missed. They are all shown below. Dcoetzee 09:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Human_heart
 * Talk:Electrical_conduction_system_of_the_heart
 * Talk:Coronary_circulation
 * Talk:Circulatory_system

Archived some threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement of Myocardial Infarction Management
Despite great contributions by previous editors, the article still has room for significant improvement. In the talk page I have opened some suggestions for its improvement. Comments and more suggestions are welcome. The goal is obviously to make the bases for some significant improvement to the article for myocardial infarction itself; the subject deserves featured article status. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Myocardial infarction and Acute coronary syndrome
In wikipedia there is some occasional confusion between myocardial infarction (MI) and ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). For instance, the article on Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has a link to MI right uder the STEMI subsection of the treatment section. More importantly, there is occasional confusion between MI and ACS. Currently, ACS is the general term encompassing the following acute conditions: STEMI, non ST elevation MI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. Moreover, NSTEMI and unstable angina fall under the umbrella of non ST elevation ACS: both American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and European Society of Cardiology guidelines refer to Non-ST elevation ACS rather than NSTEMI. The major article is currently MI, in the sense that it contains most details on the ACS family of medical conditions. Accordingly, MI management is the only special article on the management of conditions of the ACS spectrum, and, indeed, is actually an article on management of ACS, as little distinction is made in current medical practice between management of NSTEMI and (confirmed) unstable angina. This perplexes what articles under each of the above titles must contain. I wonder:
 * 1) Should Myocardial infarction management be renamed Acute coronary syndrome management?
 * 2) Should, perhaps, two different articles be written on the management of STEMI and NST-ACS - which, despite significant overlap, have important differences (e.g. reperfusion)?
 * 3) Should, even, Myocardial infarction be renamed ST elevation MI, and all information that pertains both to STEMI and NSTEMI be directed to Acute coronary syndrome?
 * My opinion is:
 * Agree.
 * Oppose, despite the great difficulties I have in improving the article on MI management. It would make the articles too technical for the general reader.
 * Oppose. The term of the layman is "myocardial infarction". The article on ACS (which needs to be expanded) will just significantly overlap with the article on MI. (E.g., symptoms are basically the same).

NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(Please do not answer here, but on the talk page of Project Medicine.)

Proposed move Varicose veins
> Varicose vein ==

Please join the discussion at Talk:Varicose veins. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Cardiology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thrombosis
I was just looking at Thrombosis, overseen by this task force, and I notice that it's rated as B-Class. I would say it's more like Start-class. Could you confirm that you're OK with this being reduced to Start-class? Also, if anyone wants to work on improving this - I notice it's ranked as High Importance for this project. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)