User talk:Ksheka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous content is visible in archive 1. Ksheka 15:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1 Citing
2 You're back
3 Histopathology-india.net
4 Barnstar
5 myocardial infarction
6 Bisoprolol in MI
7 Image:Intracoronary thrombus.png

[edit] Citing

If one uses a "ref name" that identifies the reference itself, rather than trying to specify its numerical number in the article, then it is much easier to duplicate references. The < reference / > markup at the end generates the reference numbers for one automatcally. For example see the talk page of your example (use Edit to view its mark-up): User talk:Ksheba/Staging where I try to show how your example can be reworked.

I quite agree < ref... > makes viewing the page in edit mode somewhat clumsy, but it is so useful at removing the need to get references or duplicated-references into order, that I am being won over. In particular with an article with a large number of existing references, adding a new one only requires adding the details in the main text where one is adding information - the whole of the rest of the article & its references takes care of itself (eg see this edit for acne where a reference perviously had no mark-up at all). David Ruben ^Talk 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're back

Karthik, please stick around. Your hard work from the past has led to some great articles, and we still need you. I was hoping we'd have your presence at WP:MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I really want to be back. :-) I just get frustrated at times by the wiki process (People making cosmetic changes to pages without adding real content. I understand the need for editors. I'm talking about those that just seem to want to increase the number of edits under their belts.), and hanging on the website just as I'm in the middle of an edit session. I am also hampered a bit my the crude way references are being handled on the wiki pages. But that seems to be being addressed, at least. I have a lot on my plate at work and home (a pretty busy job, a new house, and a 2 1/2 year old daughter all vieing for time). Maybe I'll eventually submit more. At the very least, I always keep interesting tracings around, ready to scan and add to various pages. Ksheka 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you've agreed to share your contrast media expertise with us! Welcome back. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Histopathology-india.net

OK, I've put the link back in the cardiology article - I thought just reverting my own edit was the easiest way to go about it. I was a bit worried about histopathology-india.net because it claims to be written by just one author, and I can't believe a single person could write so much. Also it doesn't seem to be aligned to a university or other medical institution like most other medical links on wikipedia. Having said that, feel free to put any links back that you need. I've said some more about the site at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Graham87 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See this message sent to my talk page. ~Should I follow the instructions completely or doesn't it matter? Graham87 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

It's about time someone awarded you a barnstar.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Ksheka, for numerous medical articles. Axl 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ksheka 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] myocardial infarction

Hello Ksheka,

I'm thrilled to see someone of your competence has taken an interest in this article -someone with the experience to out: "How can we have an article on MI without mentioning ISIS-2? ;-)" However, I think the sentence you added isn't really proven by the paper: it says nothing about nitrates for example. Also, the study is with months of enteric coated aspirin, whereas you've put it into the first line-section. Are my remarks just plain stupid or am I making sense here?

Anyway, thanks, also for the many other articles you've improved so much, and hope to work together to further improve the article!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ISIS-2 is one of the pivotal MI trials for one reason alone: It showed that when given promptly, aspirin is as good as thrombolytic therapy. Not bad for a drug that costs $5 per year. :-)

As for the line I added about no other first line therapy proven to have mortality benefit, I stand by it. I'll fill in a few references, though. The definitive paper about myocardial infarctions is the ACC guidelines (which I happen to have read cover-to-cover a couple months ago). According to the guidelines (page e89 in the pdf version), nitroglycerine is a class I indication for persistent ischemia, chf, and hypertension in the first 48 hours post-MI, with the caveat that it shouldn't interfere with beta blockers or ACE inhibitors. This is level of evidence B (Derived from a single randomized trial or from non-randomized studies). Not exactly the best form of proof. Morphine is the only indicated medication for pain relief (with level of evidence C), by the way. :-) Ksheka 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As for ISIS-2 using 1 month of ASA while I mentioned it in the first line agents portion, the trial randomized people within 24 hours of presentation (median 5 hours), meaning it was started early. Also, the trial showed such a clear benefit that no one will ever do another trial comparing placebo to ASA for first line therapy. ASA is now considered the standard of care. Ksheka 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied here. I really think we're improving it massively, btw, and I enjoy working together.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to work on this article when there are other eyes on it as well. I was thinking about other first line agents not impacting on mortality. My statement still holds true. The problem is, it's hard to prove since it's hard to prove a negative. It's just one of the things they mention during fellowship training. Ksheka 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely, I'll hope you agree that I only removed things from the reperfusion section that were already mentioned elsewhere. I think a better strategy than writing first and splitting into new articles later, is just write stubs in the individual sections now, with the essentials, and expand on those in new articles later -but that's just my opinion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised that you said you're going to "leave the article again for a while, until edits settle down.". Are the numerous edits a problem? If I did anything wrong or something, please say, if my edits are driving you away I would feel really uncomfortable, and I'd change my attitude if that's what's keeping you away.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read User_talk:Jfdwolff#Myocardial_infarction; if I have offended you in any way, I'd like to apologise. I know it can be frustrating for experts to collaborate on a wiki. Also, I was just trying to prevent comments about article length when this would ever reach FA-status (which should be the case). Again sorry, I'm really open to suggestions if I contributed to your frustrations.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that! I'll refrain from shortening sections you write, thus somewhat destroying work that could be incorporated in new articles, again sorry for that. Maybe we can start a "therapies for MI" article right now? Take a wikibreak if you need one, but as a matter of fact I'm gonna be gone soon myself cause of exams... so, hope no hard feelings, 'cause that article really needs your great contributions!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Eyes open on the MI page, Pinochet puts us on the mainpage...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. To avoid confusion, I wont edit anything on the page until it gets off the main page. By the way, I took a picture of some thrombus I removed from a coronary artery on Friday. I should get the digital image in a couple days. :-) Ksheka 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisoprolol in MI

Evidence or not, here in the UK bisoprolol is somehow much more popular than carvedilol. I'm really not quite sure on what grounds, but it's nice & easy to dose... JFW | T@lk 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a reference: [1]. Ksheka 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)