Template talk:Hematology blood tests
(Redirected from Template talk:Myeloid blood tests)
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Make easier to read?
[edit]Ping to Spicy who is working on Full blood count. I understand why this template is called "Myeloid blood tests", but I just think it's structured in a way that's likely to be hardest to read and most difficult to be useful to lay readers. I was wondering if you were interested in helping or just boldly simplifying the title and way this template is structured? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I always thought the title was weird, maybe it's a definition from the CPT (whatever that is) but it's not helpful for a general reader. And a lot of this has to do with red blood cells which are not "myeloid" (well they are in the sense that they originate in the bone marrow, but that's true of all blood cells). The Current Procedural Terminology article lists 85002–85999 as "hematology and coagulation" tests, which sounds more sensible. And I do not get the point of the "CFU-GM" sub-group, should just be "white blood cells", imo. Bone marrow examination and flow cytometry immunophenotyping should be on here somewhere. Spicy (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spicy For what it's worth I've put some CBC things at the top and just stripped most of the confusing subdivisions. I don't think this is fantastic, but I do think it's an improvement. I feeling like eventually coagulation things should be moved to a new template, {{Coagulation tests}}, as I think it's simpler to separate those tests out from the main of this template, as they rapidly branch away from CBC and cell-related tests to other things. Anyhow, regarding these changes let me know what you think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spicy thoughts about splitting content to {{Coagulation tests}}? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tom (LT) I prefer having all the tests in the same template. In the laboratory these tests are usually run in the same department, and in clinical practice, anyone who is being evaluated for unexplained bleeding, bruising, etc is going to get a CBC as well as a coag panel, so the concepts are interrelated. I don't think the template is so large that it needs to be split. Spicy (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- You do make some good points, this template isn't that large as you state. Happy to leave this as is. Thanks for your ongoing edits to improve it
. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- You do make some good points, this template isn't that large as you state. Happy to leave this as is. Thanks for your ongoing edits to improve it
- Tom (LT) I prefer having all the tests in the same template. In the laboratory these tests are usually run in the same department, and in clinical practice, anyone who is being evaluated for unexplained bleeding, bruising, etc is going to get a CBC as well as a coag panel, so the concepts are interrelated. I don't think the template is so large that it needs to be split. Spicy (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Spicy thoughts about splitting content to {{Coagulation tests}}? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Spicy For what it's worth I've put some CBC things at the top and just stripped most of the confusing subdivisions. I don't think this is fantastic, but I do think it's an improvement. I feeling like eventually coagulation things should be moved to a new template, {{Coagulation tests}}, as I think it's simpler to separate those tests out from the main of this template, as they rapidly branch away from CBC and cell-related tests to other things. Anyhow, regarding these changes let me know what you think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
