Talk:Ross procedure

Medicine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Ross procedure.

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

Stelzer Text

I reverted the linkspam to Paul Stelzer's website. I also reverted some text which expanded the article itself. While the text may be valid, I am highly suspicious as many of the statements are POV. Yacoub's article An evaluation of the Ross operation in adults; PMID 16901050 is a good start to expand the article some more. Dlodge 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user emailed the following text after the link to Stelzer was re-added:

The link to Paul Stelzer's personal web page is blatant advertising! An encyclopedia should be founded on facts where they exist, and then on credible experts point- of -view but should avoid endorsing someone's self-serving opinion.

Tirone David's (and others) published work on Aortic wall abnormalities in Bicuspid Aortic valve disease renders highly suspect the offering of a Ross for correction of a stenotic Bicuspid valve.

The Adult Ross operations: long term follow up Ann Thor Surg 2008;86:482-90 should perhaps be referenced because the invited commentary is understandable by all and appropriately cautionary.

The offending link and text has been removed, but David's work should be added as suggested. Dlodge (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]