From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).

Plasma exchange[edit]

Insufficient evidence to recommend PLEX for septic shock. doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0699-2 JFW | T@lk 22:32, 20 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?[edit]

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. 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[edit]

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[edit] According to the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, there are different levels of sepsis:[9]

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.[20] Severe sepsis is defined as sepsis with sepsis-induced organ dysfunction or tissue hypoperfusion (manifesting as hypotension, elevated lactate, or decreased urine output).[1] Septic shock is severe sepsis plus persistently low blood pressure despite the administration of intravenous fluids.[1]

Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I often make "classification" a subsection of diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fair. I just wanted to put it out there. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Electronic alerts based on EMR data[edit]

... do not work doi:10.1002/jhm.2347 (secondary source). JFW | T@lk 10:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


I think the edits made by Salman.ali87 are reasonable, but we desperately need a good secondary source that replaces the individual trials. The discussion should definitely cover EGDT, but in a broader sense. Better still, we need a bit of an explanation why EGDT doesn't work. JFW | T@lk 18:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Have added a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)