User talk:Axl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reference Errors on 4 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your literature survey, but can you move it to the section Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol#Myocardial_infarction to separate it from the discussions of Marinol that appear to sidetrack things? Second Quantization (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The section Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol#Marinol.2C_Cannabis.2C_and_Mortality is not specific to Marinol. Moreover, the sources that I listed include both myocardial infarction and stroke. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead anesthesia[edit]

I've overhauled the lead. If you have a minute I could use a second set of eyes to read through it. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I shall take a look. I shall leave comments on the talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Meditation and hypertension[edit]

Hi Axl. Thanks for your attention to detail in your edit to the sentence on alternative approaches to lowering blood pressure in the Hypertension article. That sentence now reads: "Different programs aimed to reduce psychological stress such a biofeedback, relaxation or transcendental meditation may be reasonable add-ons to other treatment to reduce hypertension." It cites Brook 2013. I see where Brook says biofeedback and Transcendental Meditation may be considered to lower blood pressure, but I don't see that it says the same for relaxation. What do you think? Should that be removed? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not have access to the full paper. I assume that you are right that Brook does not recommend consideration of relaxation. I could not find other suitable sources that explicitly recommend relaxation. Therefore I agree that relaxation should be deleted from the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Axl. Note that the AHA has made the full text available online for free, both as web page and pdf.[1] Once you confirm, would you be willing to make the edit? (In the past I was banned for two months for challenging the accuracy of Doc James's representation of sources, so I'm reluctant to do so.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I shall read the paper and post on the article's talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much, Axl, for fixing that. And edits you made to the subsequent sentence fixed a couple misrepresentations that I noted. I guess the only question I have now is whether Brook 2013 supports the sentence that says research on transcendental meditation and biofeedback is generally low. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding transcendental meditation, Brook states "As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP." For biofeedback: "a paucity of data precludes making recommendations for implementing a specific methodology to treat high BP in clinical practice."
I have deleted two of the older references. I have changed "quality" to "quantity". Is this reasonable? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Axl. I think that would be accurate if we specified that the quantity of data is in the context of recommending a particular method of practice. It's not, as I understand, a statement about the quantity of data related to effectiveness. (In a subsequent exchange in the journal, it was clarified that there's only one method of practicing TM.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could suggest the exact text to state? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Brook does say this toward the end: "There are several shortcomings in our present knowledge of the merits of alternative BP-lowering modalities. These include a paucity of well-designed, high-quality cardiovascular outcome trials in appropriate populations with hypertension with adequate control intervention groups for a number of nonpharmacological interventions." As I understand it, this means that even though the research suggests a reduction in blood pressure, there aren't enough studies showing whether this translates to a reduction in heart attacks, stroke, mortality rate, etc. For example, there's only one such study for TM. So your sentence could be adjusted slightly: "However, of the techniques with supportive evidence, there is a paucity of research on whether the modest reduction in blood pressure results in a reduction in cardiovascular disease." TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

How about this: "However, of the techniques with supportive evidence, there is limited information on whether the modest reduction in blood pressure results in prevention of cardiovascular disease." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks, Axl. TimidGuy (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)