Talk:Revivent

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jytdog in topic Note on UPE and advert tags

Note on UPE and advert tags

edit

This is what medical marketing looks like in WP. Many primary sources and information from the company via the churnalism ref. I have left a message at the talk page of the article creator and am looking forward to a reply there. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Based on this i have removed the UPE tag. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

In writing an article about anything in WP the first question to ask, is whether there are sufficient independent, reliable sources about it, with which to write an article? (what we do here is summarize what reliable sources. That is all we do.)

For medical content, "reliable sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS. Basically we look for recent literature reviews in high quality journals, statements by major medical bodies (the NIH itself, the NHS, the FDA or EMA, any relevant mainstream medical association treatment guidelines. That sort of thing.

So the first thing that needs to happen is to identify MEDRS sources about this device....

A search in pubmed for Revivent yields two hits, PMID 29435772 and PMID 27099723. Adding the "review" parameter to the search leaves one: PMID 29435772. That source has a pretty good discussion that could be summarized here. It is not cited. That source mentions ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularisation; I wonder if they discuss this at all. Hm. There might be an article here, along with content sourced to independent plain old RS about the invention and efforts to turn it into a product.

But the page as it stands is not good or useful. This really should be moved to draft space. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply