|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|Text from this version of Medical device was copied or moved into Life sciences with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
- 1 Where's Canada's medical devices???
- 2 Medical devices vs. equipment vs. supplies vs. products
- 3 Raise this issue again....
- 4 It's interesting....
- 5 Will this site (Wikipedia) be closed off according to .....
- 6 Ansiscope
- 7 Related discussion at Electronic medical record
- 8 Proposed restructuration of the article
- 9 Source that might be useful on RFI
- 10 RFI overkill?
Where's Canada's medical devices???
I know Canada only has 1/10th the population of the United States of America, but usually I can depend on Wikipedia having information for us too. Usually we're included as a footnote after USA. I am surprised I could not find a single reference to the word Canada (or even North America) in the entire article. I came here looking for some information what is considered a medical device. For myself I'm seeking this definition for tax purposes, I want to see for what reason the government doesn't accept weights (used for exercise) as medical devices (which logically help you live longer, stronger, healthier). As many adjectives as I can use though, it doesn't matter I'm sure they'll still decline it if I submit that... Well maybe I'm not sure that's why I'm looking. Nastajus (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Medical devices vs. equipment vs. supplies vs. products
I would like to see a brief general discussion of the different broad terms commonly used for medical devices / equipment / supplies / products, etc., with an explanation of how they overlap and differ, a few good examples that illustrate the differences between these terms.Thomas.Hedden (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thomas: Only medical device is an official legally-defined term. The other words you list have dictionary definitions. I do not think any special discussion is necessary. --Zeamays (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Thomas that it is worth it, coudl it be just to advise the layman that " Only medical device is an official legally-defined term"...--MarmotteiNoZ 06:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Raise this issue again....
Since there is no academic publishing standard for me to track which is similar to ISO 13485, the sections of Academic resources and Industrial resources are only of my preferences. Welcome others to edit them to reach a consensus--184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- You might take a look at WP:AJ and ask for help on the talk page...not sure if it's what you're looking for. If not, you could also post a request at WP:RSN. Flowanda | Talk 02:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm interesting to know when ISO is doing tracking of my google search, as the return results are very different with the time within a day and the later result will always suit my needs and taste. Thanks ISO to treat me as a VIP, hey ~__^.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Will this site (Wikipedia) be closed off according to .....
This guidance? ~__^
I removed the Ansiscope reference in the Class lists of devices as that is a brand-name of a device; not a type of device. [ref]http://www.dyansys.com/portable_ansiscope.php[/ref] 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Related discussion at Electronic medical record
I've started a discussion at the electronic medical record page; please participate in the discussion there as the links being added here seem to be related and we can keep the discussion together. Thanks! Flowanda | Talk 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- As there has been no legitimate discussion or explanation about the dozens of edits adding multiple links to google search result pages, I am removing them here and elsewhere. Flowanda | Talk 11:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed restructuration of the article
If nobody reject this idea here, I intent to:
- Add an introductory section about the fact that medical devices are regulated in most if not all countries. I would reuse some of the contents which are now in the "Standardization and regulatory concerns" section
- Merge together the Radio-frequency identification and Medical devices and technological security issues sections
- remove the "Standardization and regulatory concerns" section which I believe contains too much anectodical contents
Please comment --MarmotteiNoZ 07:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great idea. I have interest in the topic but sadly very little time at present. Looking forward to seeing your work; this article is in sore need of good content, formatting and sources. Wafflephile (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Source that might be useful on RFI
This source might be useful for improving this article - RADIOFREQUENCY INTERFERENCE WITH MEDICAL DEVICES http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/interfer.htm Has links to other sources in academic literature. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason for the inordinate amount of information about RFI in this article? Was this a notable advance in medical devices? It seems as though this information could be more usefully placed somewhere else such as in medical informatics. Any thoughts?Desoto10 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for your edits so far. In the RFI section, most likely an editor contributed what he/she could based on a single, limited source. I believe the content does belong in this article, but could use a bit of improvement: better sourcing if possible, less advice, more encyclopedic info, less verbosity, etc. Could possibly be merged with Medical device#Medical devices and technological security issues. Wafflephile (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)