Talk:Renal sympathetic denervation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Renal sympathetic denervation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Articles for creation

	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 on 21 April 2012 by reviewer Jamietw (talk · contribs).

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.

Neutral point of view

Although I am not a medical professional, I get the feeling that the article as it currently stands is particularly slanted towards the Symplicity device rather than the principles, process and outcomes of denervation itself. Crashby (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although indeed the article could be a bit more neutral, this is also simply the result of the device being the first to enter the market, beating the others by about two years, and as a results most large-scale having been done with it. --WS (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is currently a bit shouty with regards to the benefits. The Germans have a guideline (doi:10.1055/s-0031-1272580), as do the French (doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2012.03.005) and there is a lot of enthusiasm (doi:10.1155/2013/513214, doi:10.5694/mja12.11254). This is a meta-analysis (doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.010) that emphasises the short duration of follow-up in the studies. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see why the editor felt this article reads too much like an advertisement, it appears to me that the article presents a fair and balanced picture of the trial results. It agrees with what my personal physician, an expert on hypertension, just told me: initially the results looked promising but not so much in the recent trial. Cogscientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogscientist (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about balanced. When I followed the very last link in the article (other applications section), I read what what was suspiciously like a panacea treatment, for it treated CHF, LVH, AF, OK, fine that is imaginable. Then, it went on to suggest efficacy with OSA and type 2 diabetes. Granted, there is a loop that links hypertension and type 2 diabetes, but obstructive sleep apnea? I think that the article can benefit from a medical expert's attention, especially in the other applications section and possibly include pathophysiology for some of the claimed benefits. Whenever one finds such a wide constellation of claimed benefits, one invariably finds snake oil, in my own experience.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]