Talk:Renal sympathetic denervation
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Wzrd1 in topic Neutral point of view
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renal sympathetic denervation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Neutral point of view
editAlthough I am not a medical professional, I get the feeling that the article as it currently stands is particularly slanted towards the Symplicity device rather than the principles, process and outcomes of denervation itself. Crashby (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Although indeed the article could be a bit more neutral, this is also simply the result of the device being the first to enter the market, beating the others by about two years, and as a results most large-scale having been done with it. --WS (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that the article is currently a bit shouty with regards to the benefits. The Germans have a guideline (doi:10.1055/s-0031-1272580), as do the French (doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2012.03.005) and there is a lot of enthusiasm (doi:10.1155/2013/513214, doi:10.5694/mja12.11254). This is a meta-analysis (doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.010) that emphasises the short duration of follow-up in the studies. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Although I can see why the editor felt this article reads too much like an advertisement, it appears to me that the article presents a fair and balanced picture of the trial results. It agrees with what my personal physician, an expert on hypertension, just told me: initially the results looked promising but not so much in the recent trial. Cogscientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogscientist (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about balanced. When I followed the very last link in the article (other applications section), I read what what was suspiciously like a panacea treatment, for it treated CHF, LVH, AF, OK, fine that is imaginable. Then, it went on to suggest efficacy with OSA and type 2 diabetes. Granted, there is a loop that links hypertension and type 2 diabetes, but obstructive sleep apnea? I think that the article can benefit from a medical expert's attention, especially in the other applications section and possibly include pathophysiology for some of the claimed benefits. Whenever one finds such a wide constellation of claimed benefits, one invariably finds snake oil, in my own experience.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)