 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"This article explains the benefit, the evolution and the clinical significance of continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with special attention to recent technological progress in this area."
Wow... talk about POV. This article needs a serious overhaul.
- Added NPOV template. Do not know when or by whom previous comment was written. The problems run throughout the article, which is written like a sales pitch, trade journal article, or medical review. References are very sparse for the statements made. Organization is poor. Probably should have an "unencyclopedic tone" template as well (or perhaps even instead). Here are some examples, but I emphasize that the problem runs through the entire text: "gold standard", "high demand ... is proven" (no ref). Paleolith ( talk) 06:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Gold standard" being used to describe other techniques is fine. High demand for this alleged magick on the other hand... well, that's going to take some proving. Artoria 2e5 🌉 15:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually the information I was hoping to find was the availability status of the various devices, but perhaps the clinical trials have fallen flat? Last time I researched this topic was several years ago, and at that time there were a number of experimental devices and two that reported on clinical trials in progress. The projected prices seemed quite high, but at the time I thought I might have been able to justify it... Anyway so far today's research has come up pretty dry. Yeah, I know Wikipedia isn't the best place for leading-edge results, but I had hoped things had gotten beyond that point by now. Or maybe mentioning the actual devices is some kind of policy violation? Shanen ( talk) 01:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"This article explains the benefit, the evolution and the clinical significance of continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with special attention to recent technological progress in this area."
Wow... talk about POV. This article needs a serious overhaul.
- Added NPOV template. Do not know when or by whom previous comment was written. The problems run throughout the article, which is written like a sales pitch, trade journal article, or medical review. References are very sparse for the statements made. Organization is poor. Probably should have an "unencyclopedic tone" template as well (or perhaps even instead). Here are some examples, but I emphasize that the problem runs through the entire text: "gold standard", "high demand ... is proven" (no ref). Paleolith ( talk) 06:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Gold standard" being used to describe other techniques is fine. High demand for this alleged magick on the other hand... well, that's going to take some proving. Artoria 2e5 🌉 15:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually the information I was hoping to find was the availability status of the various devices, but perhaps the clinical trials have fallen flat? Last time I researched this topic was several years ago, and at that time there were a number of experimental devices and two that reported on clinical trials in progress. The projected prices seemed quite high, but at the time I thought I might have been able to justify it... Anyway so far today's research has come up pretty dry. Yeah, I know Wikipedia isn't the best place for leading-edge results, but I had hoped things had gotten beyond that point by now. Or maybe mentioning the actual devices is some kind of policy violation? Shanen ( talk) 01:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)