Talk:Oxygen therapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 19 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex Nhan. Peer reviewers: Alin538.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oxygen Therapy flow rates

In the field while using an oxygen delivery system one can not always rely on what the gadge relays. There are several things to keep in mind while using this equipement. You need to know the remainding volume is, calculate this with residual (500 lt.)and tank size. An equation is used to develope a measurement for remainding time.

(tank size)= metered reading - residaul x litres per minute at (? x 1.56) M-tank = time left

For the M ,D. E tanks what are the recognized equations to determin the tome left on that specific tank?

My name is Dan and I can be reached at ontariofirstaidworld.com or ontariofirstaid@gmail.com

Citations

I noticed that my reference clean up edits were reverted by RexxS. Given that there are several citations already using the vanc parameters I fail to see where the data granularity is being preserved by the status quo. The reference section is a mess with cite templates full of url linkrot parameters which we don't really need given the doi and pmid numbers are present. The deadlink raw url ref (that I replaced with a pmid cite) is basically useless, so are we are saying that we are not going to improve articles for the sake of data granularity? Should we be downgrading those vauthor parameters currently in the article to preserve data granularity? CV9933 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@CV9933: When you change:

• |last1=Chu |first1=DK |last2=Kim |first2=LH |last3=Young |first3=PJ |last4=Zamiri |first4=N |last5=Almenawer |first5=SA |last6=Jaeschke |first6=R |last7=Szczeklik |first7=W |last8=Schünemann |first8=HJ |last9=Neary |first9=JD |last10=Alhazzani |first10=W

to:

• |vauthors = Chu DK, Kim LH, Young PJ, Zamiri N, Almenawer SA, Jaeschke R, Szczeklik W, Schünemann HJ, Neary JD, Alhazzani W

you are throwing away information that another editor has put effort into providing. That does not improve the article. Now do you see where your edit failed to preserve data granularity? If a reference section actually needs to be tidied further, surely that can be done without downgrading the full list of author parameters to the lower-quality vauthors parameter? You seem to believe that preserving data granularity is incompatible with cleaning up reference problems. It's not.

If references have pmids and doi numbers, then what does the url matter? Whether it's valid or linkrotted, anybody can follow the pimid or doi link to find the article. You make no difference to the article by removing such a url. How did removing url=http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001744.pub2/full improve the article? Are you contending that the Cochrane Library urls are prone to linkrot? The doi was still there anyway, but did capitalising cd001744 improve the article? Not one jot; it was just busywork.

How did changing date=4 September 2010 to date=September 2010 improve the article? Was putting the pmid parameter before the pmc parameter an improvement?

What about your change from journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine to journal = Undersea Hyperb Med? Are you going to defend that as an improvement? Did you know there's a bot that goes around replacing the shortened journal names with the full ones? Now we know why there's so much work for it.

Are you aware of our policy to supply a url to a full text version, when the pmid only supplies an abstract? If so, why did you remove url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4010 (and its archive-url) from the Smerz reference. The Rubicon Research Repository has the full text version, while your so-called "CS1 maint - template details and linkrot" left the article with just a link to an abstract.

Some of the changes you made were actual improvements, such as replacing a bare url with a cite template including a pmid, but if you can't tell the difference between edits which are improvements and those which make the article worse, you ought to consider very carefully whether you ought to be doing this sort of work at all. --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to provide me with a detailed reply. It is very refreshing to have a comprehensive explanation regarding the parts of my edits that caused you so much frustration and I would like to give you the rationale behind my editing. I mostly use the Wikipedia template filling tool which automatically populates the parameter fields to what I always considered to be a “Wikipedia” standard. As well as slightly different date parameters it likely re-arranges the order of the parameters at the same time, hopefully that addresses your point about moving the position of the pmc parameter. I have always found the vanc format to be elegant in it’s simplicity and rightly or wrongly have found the rationale behind it compelling. I discovered previously that if I selected the full journal title with this tool, a bot comes along and replaces it with a shorter version. I therefore usually default to the short journal title, but that is how journal titles like Undersea Hyperb Med result. I like to add ref names where possible because that means it is potentially possible to use the same citation again to expand the article. The tool gives me the impression that the url parameter can be omitted if the doi field is populated and as I provided both a refname, a pmid and doi number for the cochrane reference, I felt that was an improvement that offered that potential. If you click on the titles in the references that have link rot, they don’t lead anywhere, so that is my reasoning for removing them - they are just confusing in my opinion. Nobody is exempt from making mistakes and I did check the rubicon link and it led me what I thought was just an archived abstract page which seemed pointless so I removed it. I can see now that really was a mistake because I missed the pdf link and when one makes a mistake, one can only apologise. Like all volunteers here, I give my time to try and improve the project and I really do value your opinion so thanks once again. Regards CV9933 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no "Wikipedia standard" for citations. However, there is a well-established policy that you don't change citation styles without prior consensus. Now, you do get articles where the style has been developed using one style – e.g. the common style on Wikipedia where authors are displayed as Surname1, Givenname1; Surname2, Givenname2; etc. – but an editor has added a reference in another, such as Vancouver-style (which displays authors as Surname1 Givenname1, Surname2 Givenname2, etc.) This article used the common style on Wikipedia and you can see that of the 50+ references, all but 5 of them have the authors separated by semicolons and the <last first> separated by commas. Under those circumstances, it is not right to add references in Vancouver-style (such as vauthors) as it breaches WP:CITEVAR. no matter how much you personally like the style.

Perhaps you might take a look at User:Citation bot. You can use that tool yourself and it may do many of the tasks you're interested in without reformatting an existing citation style. Here's a diff from my watchlist for today on Valsalva maneuver that gives an idea of its capabilities. It makes the mistake of using ISO dates for the |date= parameter, which need to be fixed manually, but that's small problem compared to the improvements it makes.

Anyway, there are many tools to help clean up references, and each of us will have our favourites, so it's worth getting familiar with what's available. Incidentally, if there really is a bot that changes full journal titles to abbreviated ones, please let me know the name of the bot and I'll challenge its bot approval. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I came across this rather lengthy but informative archived cite discussion today. I have a much better insight now. Unforunately it got cobwebs on it before I arrived on wikipedia, but it is still a good routemap for treading warily in the ref section. Regards CV9933 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Student Workplan

Hello all, I am a 4th year medical student enrolled in the UCF WikiProject Medicine course, and I am planning on pursuing a career in anesthesiology. As part of a school course I will try to contribute to this Wikipedia article over the course of the next 4 weeks. In particular, I am planning on:

General:

- Edits/rearrangement to the article for grammar, flow, and succinctness.

- Add a section regarding physiological effects of oxygen supplementation, with appropriate references

- Embed associated links to other Wikipedia articles to my snippet

- Reorganize the "Side Effects" section in a way that provides more structure to the overall article, and depending on the overlap with physiological effects condense them into a single section

- Double-check article/references for out-of-date information/linkrot, contribute more detail to particular sections when I feel detail is lacking

- Add subsections to portions of the article where I feel it would benefit from additional structuring, e.g., "Delivery"

- Avoid medical jargon when sensible

- Add a graphic/figure to the article.

If I am doing anything negatively impacting the article please let me know; I would be happy to make the appropriate change(s) and I am open to feedback.

Alex Nhan (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Alex Nahn, this is Alex Lin here to peer review your great work thus far.

Couple suggestions:

1. Could benefits from some changes to the chronic conditions/contraindications/AEs

- consider adding a heading to chronic condition above the area where you suggest careful titration
- add bullets for clarity
- add a lead in sentence for AE's which differentiates it from contraindications

2. Physiologic effects

- could benefit from clarifying what type of physiologic effects in the header

3. Consider detailing FiO2 earlier on than in delivery

- this could help clarify a commonly confusing terminology b/w FiO2, different oxygen saturations

4. Rename "As a drug delivery route" - aesthetically dissimilar from other headings

Thank you for your time.

Strong Work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alin538 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Alex, thank you for your suggestions. I have detailed changes I have made: Suggestion 1:

- Chronic conditions was a previously existing title which the paragraph falls under; I do not feel an additional header may be needed at this point in time.
- Thank you for adding bullets
- A lead-in sentence has been added per your recommendation

Suggestion 2:

- I have no clear system to arrange the variety of physiologic effects so they are listed alphabetically. Not all of the physiological effects are pathological, and sometimes they affect the same system in different ways. I feel like increasing the categories of effects will add to article clutter.

Suggestion 3:

- FiO2 is now described earlier in the article with an accompanying definition.

Suggestion 4:

- Good catch! The heading has been changed to 'Drug Delivery'.

Thanks! Alex Nhan (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)