This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Drug-eluting stent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
A fact from Drug-eluting stent appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 July 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
It would be valuable to maintain the credibility of this article, and prevent it turning into a battleground for highly polarized opinions, where editors stake out extreme positions ("CABG is superior to DES for two-vessel disease" -- NOT supported by the majority of clinical research nor by guidelines of the professional bodies) and inflammatory positions ("Legal status: As enthusiasm for these new devices abates...." -- has nothing to do with the "legal" status of the devices, either from a regulatory standpoint nor even from the POV of the plaintiffs' bar.)
It would be valuable to organize this in a rational way -- rather than jumping from history of balloon angioplasty, to pre-clinical investigational bioresorbable stents (in one edit, incorrectly headed as "drug elution"), to "alternative drugs", all before ever saying a word about the DES that are currently available for clinical use, and about which there are thousands of verifiable citations to substantiate a wiki article.
I have cleaned up the structure, written balanced positions on controversial topics, and attempted to restore a sense of decorum.
Nuff said. Debate welcomed here if someone disagrees with my edits. Donsmokem ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin continues to revert and delete every contribution I have made towards neutrality, verifiability, and expertise on the subject. The "legal status" piece is particularly devoid of value. Could someone please guide me towards an appeal process? Donsmokem ( talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this revision of the piece restores the NPOV based on the consensus of Merechriolus and Dlodge. If there is a reason to revert and delete this work again, would the editor please address that reason here and attempt to shift consensus, rather than unilaterally making the change? Thank you. Donsmokem ( talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin re-applied the advert, clearup, and citation tags. Dlodge and I agree that they can be removed. Consensus? Donsmokem ( talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No ad-hominem attacks here, orangefish. I'm sure you know something about the field. I do too, including as an editor of a high-impact journal in the field. I believe that it is free of pro-JNJ, pro-BSCI, pro-DES bias. If you could point to the word, words, lines, or concepts that sound to you like advertising, I am sure that the community of legitimate experts in the field will do something about it. Donsmokem ( talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If no one else advocates for retaining the tags, then we ought to remove them. Donsmokem ( talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with the revisions that Dlodge made to the "Alternatives" section. The structure seems basically sound to me. The stent thrombosis issue could be 10 pages long if editors wanted to expand it, but I think it's factual and neutral now. Citations still need a little clean-up, then it ought to stand as a Good Article. Donsmokem ( talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The majority of this article is written/edited by BeingObjective, but he is permanently banned, therefore I would nominate the article, as I also substantially contributed to the article, see https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Drug-eluting%20stent/ -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: NikosGouliaros ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Our mutual replies were here and there and impossible for anyone other than us to follow, so I've arranged them in sections, keeping them time-stamped. Hope this helps.Please let's keep our replies in the section they are meant for. NikosGouliaros ( talk) 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that this is my first GA review; I am prepared to be corrected or withdraw if experienced editors believe I am off-base. Also note I am not a native English speaker.
There is no doubt a lot of work has been put to this article on a magnificent device, which performs two complicated functions together (vessel scaffolding and gradual drug emitting), and has been described as a "multidiscipllinary success story" [a] [1], so congratulations to its contributors. However, I humbly express my skepticism that it can be brought to GA status in the time frame of a GA review. In my opinion there are some gaps in the coverage of the topic, coupled with undue weight placed on peripheral aspects of it. For now, I am explaining my general thoughts on the article content, and then taking a closer look at the Lead, as an idea of what more detailed fact-checking, reference-checking and copy-editing could look like for the rest of it.
So, starting from the big picture: Drug eluting stent follows, to some extent, the Manual of Style on medicine-related articles as regards the article layout; there, medical devices are grouped with drugs and treatments, and I'd argue this isn't very helpful, as this layout is clearly made for medications. Crucially, it lacks a section on the description of the device, and the different types it comes in. One can compare similar GAs: The only Good Articles on a medical device are Dental implant, which has a "composition" section right after "uses"; and Injector pen, with a "design" section in the same place. Another instance of a somewhat similarly themed Good Article is Brachytherapy, which has a section on "types". (No Featured Articles with helpful thematic similarities are found). So, I think this article is definitely missing a section dedicated to describing the device (I expand on some potential ways of describing it later on), and its different subtypes. More specifically, this section could also mention:
I'd argue the section on description I'm proposing would be better suited after Uses (like in the aforementioned GAs), since Uses is the section that also gives background info on atherosclerosis and restenosis, two essential concepts to grasp what's behind DES design.
So, moving on to Uses: I think it needs a little more general background on atherosclerosis, without jumping directly to coronary artery disease; nonetheless, specific info on symptoms and signs (under the heading Clinical indications) feel a bit non-relevant to the article. Also, from this point on, the section feels like coming from an article on PCI, not DES. Importantly: but for a brief lead reference, the article ignores the use of drug eluting stents (DES) in peripheral arterial interventions, and only covers coronary interventions. It couldn't reasonably pass GA review without expanding its breadth of coverage to the role of DES in peripheral arterial disease, relatively limited though it is. [5] [6]: 57–59 [7]: 56 The obvious place for this is probably [[Drug eluting stent#Uses]|this section].
The Clinical Procedure section is welcome; I wonder if being somewhat less detailed could help it. The section on Efficacy feels not necessary: much of it just repeats info already given, or that could reasonably fit elsewhere; on the other had, it could merge with Complications into an Outcomes section. I'm also skeptical on the role of Design considerations: it reads a bit like a foreword to a manufacturer's manual. The info including in the Alternatives section could either be missing or fit in Uses.
History is of course welcome, but I wonder if some of the material in the first three paragraphs could be shortened.
These are some first thoughts. Looking forward to some reaction! NikosGouliaros ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The stent slowly releases a drug to prevent re-blockage of the arteryis followed by
The release of the drug from the stent to prevent the growth of scar tissue and reduce the risk of stent restenosis, which is the narrowing of the stented area of an artery after treatment: this repeats less than it expands on the previous sentence, but the first paragraph of the lead might not be the perfect place for expanding; directly follows
A drug-eluting stent is different from other types of stents because it has a coating that delivers medication directly to the arterial wall., which is saying pretty much the same. Moreover, the first paragraph describes the stent insertion procedure, before the reader becomes acquainted with the concept of atherosclerosis and perhaps angioplasty.
As of 2023, more than 90 percent of stents used in PCI procedures were DES, as I can't find where the source [12] mentions this, and it is a challengeable piece of info. NikosGouliaros ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I added the "Design" section that briefly covers the issues that you've raised. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
In designing a DESto
add further complexity to design considerations), and not just the heading, should go; it is somewhat manual-like, it repeats already given info, and it feels a bit in violation of GA criterion 3b. But I'm willing to be convinced differently.
Notes
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Hello, NikosGouliaros! I hope I resolved your concerns and objections one week ago. Do you have any more concerns that I have to address? Are you expecting any action for me for these last 5-7 days? Please let me know how should I proceed. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Drug-eluting stent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
A fact from Drug-eluting stent appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 July 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
It would be valuable to maintain the credibility of this article, and prevent it turning into a battleground for highly polarized opinions, where editors stake out extreme positions ("CABG is superior to DES for two-vessel disease" -- NOT supported by the majority of clinical research nor by guidelines of the professional bodies) and inflammatory positions ("Legal status: As enthusiasm for these new devices abates...." -- has nothing to do with the "legal" status of the devices, either from a regulatory standpoint nor even from the POV of the plaintiffs' bar.)
It would be valuable to organize this in a rational way -- rather than jumping from history of balloon angioplasty, to pre-clinical investigational bioresorbable stents (in one edit, incorrectly headed as "drug elution"), to "alternative drugs", all before ever saying a word about the DES that are currently available for clinical use, and about which there are thousands of verifiable citations to substantiate a wiki article.
I have cleaned up the structure, written balanced positions on controversial topics, and attempted to restore a sense of decorum.
Nuff said. Debate welcomed here if someone disagrees with my edits. Donsmokem ( talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin continues to revert and delete every contribution I have made towards neutrality, verifiability, and expertise on the subject. The "legal status" piece is particularly devoid of value. Could someone please guide me towards an appeal process? Donsmokem ( talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this revision of the piece restores the NPOV based on the consensus of Merechriolus and Dlodge. If there is a reason to revert and delete this work again, would the editor please address that reason here and attempt to shift consensus, rather than unilaterally making the change? Thank you. Donsmokem ( talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin re-applied the advert, clearup, and citation tags. Dlodge and I agree that they can be removed. Consensus? Donsmokem ( talk) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No ad-hominem attacks here, orangefish. I'm sure you know something about the field. I do too, including as an editor of a high-impact journal in the field. I believe that it is free of pro-JNJ, pro-BSCI, pro-DES bias. If you could point to the word, words, lines, or concepts that sound to you like advertising, I am sure that the community of legitimate experts in the field will do something about it. Donsmokem ( talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If no one else advocates for retaining the tags, then we ought to remove them. Donsmokem ( talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with the revisions that Dlodge made to the "Alternatives" section. The structure seems basically sound to me. The stent thrombosis issue could be 10 pages long if editors wanted to expand it, but I think it's factual and neutral now. Citations still need a little clean-up, then it ought to stand as a Good Article. Donsmokem ( talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The majority of this article is written/edited by BeingObjective, but he is permanently banned, therefore I would nominate the article, as I also substantially contributed to the article, see https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Drug-eluting%20stent/ -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: NikosGouliaros ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Our mutual replies were here and there and impossible for anyone other than us to follow, so I've arranged them in sections, keeping them time-stamped. Hope this helps.Please let's keep our replies in the section they are meant for. NikosGouliaros ( talk) 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that this is my first GA review; I am prepared to be corrected or withdraw if experienced editors believe I am off-base. Also note I am not a native English speaker.
There is no doubt a lot of work has been put to this article on a magnificent device, which performs two complicated functions together (vessel scaffolding and gradual drug emitting), and has been described as a "multidiscipllinary success story" [a] [1], so congratulations to its contributors. However, I humbly express my skepticism that it can be brought to GA status in the time frame of a GA review. In my opinion there are some gaps in the coverage of the topic, coupled with undue weight placed on peripheral aspects of it. For now, I am explaining my general thoughts on the article content, and then taking a closer look at the Lead, as an idea of what more detailed fact-checking, reference-checking and copy-editing could look like for the rest of it.
So, starting from the big picture: Drug eluting stent follows, to some extent, the Manual of Style on medicine-related articles as regards the article layout; there, medical devices are grouped with drugs and treatments, and I'd argue this isn't very helpful, as this layout is clearly made for medications. Crucially, it lacks a section on the description of the device, and the different types it comes in. One can compare similar GAs: The only Good Articles on a medical device are Dental implant, which has a "composition" section right after "uses"; and Injector pen, with a "design" section in the same place. Another instance of a somewhat similarly themed Good Article is Brachytherapy, which has a section on "types". (No Featured Articles with helpful thematic similarities are found). So, I think this article is definitely missing a section dedicated to describing the device (I expand on some potential ways of describing it later on), and its different subtypes. More specifically, this section could also mention:
I'd argue the section on description I'm proposing would be better suited after Uses (like in the aforementioned GAs), since Uses is the section that also gives background info on atherosclerosis and restenosis, two essential concepts to grasp what's behind DES design.
So, moving on to Uses: I think it needs a little more general background on atherosclerosis, without jumping directly to coronary artery disease; nonetheless, specific info on symptoms and signs (under the heading Clinical indications) feel a bit non-relevant to the article. Also, from this point on, the section feels like coming from an article on PCI, not DES. Importantly: but for a brief lead reference, the article ignores the use of drug eluting stents (DES) in peripheral arterial interventions, and only covers coronary interventions. It couldn't reasonably pass GA review without expanding its breadth of coverage to the role of DES in peripheral arterial disease, relatively limited though it is. [5] [6]: 57–59 [7]: 56 The obvious place for this is probably [[Drug eluting stent#Uses]|this section].
The Clinical Procedure section is welcome; I wonder if being somewhat less detailed could help it. The section on Efficacy feels not necessary: much of it just repeats info already given, or that could reasonably fit elsewhere; on the other had, it could merge with Complications into an Outcomes section. I'm also skeptical on the role of Design considerations: it reads a bit like a foreword to a manufacturer's manual. The info including in the Alternatives section could either be missing or fit in Uses.
History is of course welcome, but I wonder if some of the material in the first three paragraphs could be shortened.
These are some first thoughts. Looking forward to some reaction! NikosGouliaros ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The stent slowly releases a drug to prevent re-blockage of the arteryis followed by
The release of the drug from the stent to prevent the growth of scar tissue and reduce the risk of stent restenosis, which is the narrowing of the stented area of an artery after treatment: this repeats less than it expands on the previous sentence, but the first paragraph of the lead might not be the perfect place for expanding; directly follows
A drug-eluting stent is different from other types of stents because it has a coating that delivers medication directly to the arterial wall., which is saying pretty much the same. Moreover, the first paragraph describes the stent insertion procedure, before the reader becomes acquainted with the concept of atherosclerosis and perhaps angioplasty.
As of 2023, more than 90 percent of stents used in PCI procedures were DES, as I can't find where the source [12] mentions this, and it is a challengeable piece of info. NikosGouliaros ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I added the "Design" section that briefly covers the issues that you've raised. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
In designing a DESto
add further complexity to design considerations), and not just the heading, should go; it is somewhat manual-like, it repeats already given info, and it feels a bit in violation of GA criterion 3b. But I'm willing to be convinced differently.
Notes
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Hello, NikosGouliaros! I hope I resolved your concerns and objections one week ago. Do you have any more concerns that I have to address? Are you expecting any action for me for these last 5-7 days? Please let me know how should I proceed. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)