Talk:Revivent

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 16 May 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Medicine Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Revivent.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Note on UPE and advert tags

This is what medical marketing looks like in WP. Many primary sources and information from the company via the churnalism ref. I have left a message at the talk page of the article creator and am looking forward to a reply there. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this i have removed the UPE tag. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

In writing an article about anything in WP the first question to ask, is whether there are sufficient independent, reliable sources about it, with which to write an article? (what we do here is summarize what reliable sources. That is all we do.)

For medical content, "reliable sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS. Basically we look for recent literature reviews in high quality journals, statements by major medical bodies (the NIH itself, the NHS, the FDA or EMA, any relevant mainstream medical association treatment guidelines. That sort of thing.

So the first thing that needs to happen is to identify MEDRS sources about this device....

A search in pubmed for Revivent yields two hits, PMID 29435772 and PMID 27099723. Adding the "review" parameter to the search leaves one: PMID 29435772. That source has a pretty good discussion that could be summarized here. It is not cited. That source mentions ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularisation; I wonder if they discuss this at all. Hm. There might be an article here, along with content sourced to independent plain old RS about the invention and efforts to turn it into a product.

But the page as it stands is not good or useful. This really should be moved to draft space. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]