Talk:Trifascicular block
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Trifascicular block.
|
Untitled[edit]
PMID 7088050 looked at the natural history of high-degree blocks. Is there any more recent evidence? JFW | T@lk 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
make no sense[edit]
The article says the term should be discontinued but the given ref uses it [[1]] and even this article uses it without giving an alternative. I think the article needs a rewrite. Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I removed the uncited "term should be discontinued" POV. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class Physiology articles
- Mid-importance Physiology articles
- Physiology articles about an unassessed area
- WikiProject Physiology articles
- Start-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- Start-Class cardiology articles
- Low-importance cardiology articles
- Cardiology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles