Talk:Tricuspid regurgitation/Archive 1

note

Hello, I am a new editor. I would like to contribute to this page. To do this better, it would help me to understand why the edits in the past month were deleted. Any insight is appreciated. Little Heart Ed (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

left note[1] on editors/ talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Regurgitation is much more widely used - Google for tricuspid is 3.5+ million hits vs 600K for insufficiency; similar findings for other pages. The first sentence on tricuspid page states more commonly known as regurgitation. Iztwoz (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

support per Iztwoz--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

support the names proposed by Iztwoz are far more common both in the medical profession and in what we say to patients, at least in the UK. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support, agreeing the regurgitation is the more common term in currently (also based on UK experience), consistent with the metrics referred to above. Klbrain (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like consensus to me. I'm happy to make the moves, but do we need somebody uninvolved to officially close the discussion first? Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation needed - Life expectancy

The article states that mild TR already reduces life expectancy - but states further that 65-85% of the population are affected. Does this mean that 65-85% of the population have a reduced life expectancy? A citation for this claim would be much appreciated. If this should not be possible perhaps the life expectancy section should be rewritten? 2A02:A46A:B8C9:1:80BA:806C:2B9B:C4C4 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will look,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]