Talk:Cardiac monitoring

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 July 2019 and 30 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sorite427, SY1203, Peaham, Krabbypattyking, Enzzzma, Truth670.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Wireless ambulatory ecg

A discussion at Cardiac monitoring#Merge proposal has led to the proposal that Wireless ambulatory ecg be merged here. The incoming page is poorly linked and would be better integrated into one of the existing monitoring pages.Klbrain (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article's subject is notable in its own right and meaningfully distinct from what the Cardiac Monitoring page covers. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging. Wireless ambulatory monitoring is a significant special case, notable in its own right. Wikipedia has too many overly long pages already, due to excessive merging. —Syrenka V (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this subtopic is shared by at least two broader topics: ambulatory monitoring in general (not necessarily cardiac), and cardiac monitoring in general (not necessarily ambulatory). Merging this subtopic with either of the broader topics would create duplication between them, as this topic would have to be covered in both. Link, don't merge! This is almost always the right decision when a notable subtopic is shared by two or more broader topics. Merging should be reserved for cases where two articles cover essentially identical topics (not a broader topic and one of its subtopics!), or where the subtopic is not notable in its own right. —Syrenka V (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific statement

doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000527 JFW | T@lk 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing classification specifics

The detailed classification breakdown at the end of the lead paragraph seems out of place. I propose removing it completely since it probably isn't relevant for general audiences (WP:MEDMOS). —Thinkinink (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]