Talk:Trifascicular block

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Medicine: Cardiology 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.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

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

Untitled

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)[reply]

How about PMID 17339573. Sounds promissing.Ksheka 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

make no sense

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)[reply]

I removed the uncited "term should be discontinued" POV. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]