|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sepsis article.|
|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 Sepsis.
|WikiProject Medicine / Translation||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
This doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004388.pub5 Cochrane review has been updated, newest publication needs to be consulted and cited. I can assist with access for an editor interested. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- And the benefit from albumin the SAFE trial was reproduced on meta-analysis. doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0702-y JFW | T@lk 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliability of source?
This is not strictly labeled as a review on PubMed and is called a "special communication" on JAMA Internal Medicine, but appears to be a secondary source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23752755 Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a secondary source, but not a great one. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you expand on why? I kind of guessed this would be the reaction (and this is why I asked about it first), but I'm curious to hear thoughts on why this wouldn't be a great source. Is it because it's a short "special communication" and not really labeled a formal review? The journal JAMA Internal Medicine is good, no? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, JAMA Internal Medicine is pretty good. The paper in question seems to be heavy on opinion. We could cite it as a source to support a statement saying that "in some patient groups, particular interventions may be too aggressive and carry a higher risk of harm than is justified by their condition" or something along those lines. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal-a classification section
I don't know if a classification section has been proposed for this article before, but I was thinking about it when looking through the diagnosis section. Specifically, I was thinking we could put the following text into a classification section of its own instead of putting it in the diagnosis section.
Definitions According to the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, there are different levels of sepsis:
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is the presence of two or more of the following: abnormal body temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate or blood gas, and white blood cell count. Sepsis is defined as SIRS in response to an infectious process. Severe sepsis is defined as sepsis with sepsis-induced organ dysfunction or tissue hypoperfusion (manifesting as hypotension, elevated lactate, or decreased urine output). Septic shock is severe sepsis plus persistently low blood pressure despite the administration of intravenous fluids.