Talk:Acellular dermis

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 Acellular dermis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Dentistry Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge with Alloderm

Not sufficiently notable per se. The sources declare what brand of ECM was used because they have to, as medical journals. This does not amount to independent notability. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dubbin I contend that alloderm is notable as it is a specific type of ECM used for specific purposes (and i am sure that it has specfic advantages and disadvantages and differences versus other types of ecms). Just as sprite is a specific brand of soda made by coca cola but is not merged in to the general soda article. This content should be allowed to stand on its own. Please allow other editors time to build their articles and please note that i did not interfere your previous edits on this article. Respectfully Ensadvocate (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant consideration is whether it has sufficient independent notability, confirmed by suitable external sources, to justify its own page as opposed to a mention (that would include any truly distinct uses) on the ECM page. As presented, it doesn't and you will need to advance evidence if you want it to remain. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 07:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support in general we have articles on the generic thing and only have articles on specific brands when there is something notable about that brand. So most brand names for acetaminophen redirect to the rest-of-the-world generic name Paracetamol; we do have an article on Tylenol as it is notable due to the cyanide poisoning and the work J&J around the brand. But we don't have articles on the other brands of paracetamol. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Dubbin: This page has significant notability because of multiple lawsuits initiated in regards to alloderm please google alloderm hernia repair lawsuit Please allow me time to work it into the article i cant right now thanks for your input dubbin and @Jytdog:! this will make the article better Ensadvocate (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. hm. I am willing to wait. i know there is lots of litigation around hernia repair products - if this litigation is part of that morass then I am not sure it really does it. But I am willing to see. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the article, and performed a copy-paste merge of the "Litigation" section of Talk:Alloderm. For context, I retitled the thread "Litigation against Alloderm". —Ringbang (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation against Alloderm

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed regarding specifically regarding alloderm mesh hernia repair (including possibly a class action suit i dunno yet tho) and i contend that it would make this page notable ideas on how we can work it into the page thanks??? Ensadvocate (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, it is all about sources. In order to establish notability you will need to provide independent sources like news articles. These will need to establish that Alloderm per se is sufficiently notable above and beyond the general notability of ECM biomaterials. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 09:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added section and references Thank you for your feedback will continue to work on this article to improve its quality more references etc.Ensadvocate (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source may be reliable but I'm not convinced that a specialist legal publication demonstrates notability. I think we need multiple sources of mainstream news coverage if it is to be used to demonstrate notability for an independent article. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ack terrible, terrible sourcing. Please use high quality sourcing like major newspapers and media. We have an important mission to provide people with summaries of accepted knowledge, and you don't find that on websites like lawyersandsettlements.com the business model of which is referring readers to litigators. please. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if i toned down the statement a little bit and supported it with court announcements/Notices from the state of new jersey usa. (Don't know how i would reference it though?) Also I think it is notable because if you were considering hernia repair with alloderm you might want to know and 300 some lawsuits thats quite a bit . Also their are multiple articles in legal publications let me ponder this? also any feedback?? re: how to ref court announcements Ensadvocate (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view ongoing litigation is not encyclopedic. Settled or judged cases are. If they are really noteworthy they will be covered by major media - you can search the NYT, WSJ, LA times, CNN, etc. If you have access to a library, even a public library, you can find more stuff. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just a took a spin through the NYT, WSJ, LA Times, CNN, no mention of this litigation. Added some stuff i found. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are really about the company, rather than the product though. The article remains weak for notability. Perhaps move this page to LifeCell and merge any scientific or health-related discussion about the Alloderm product into ECM Biomaterial. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sales are about how much the product is used; information about who sells it, is relevant to the product. I agree N is still questionable. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

following up soon gentlemenEnsadvocate (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]