Talk:Vacutainer

Vacutainer was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
June 9, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to blood.

Medicine B‑class 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
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Delisted GA

Hi. I have removed this article from the Wikipedia:Good article listing due to the following:

No references. One of the GA criteria is that a reference section must be provided. Inline citations are preferred but not required. When this issue has been addressed, please feel free to re-nominate. Thanks! Air.dance 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment on your talk page, I've relisted it. I also took the opportunity to add a references section. :-) --TreyHarris 05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great and is GA material all the way. Sorry about the mix-up! Air.dance 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium Citrate?

Hi,

Just used your article for a session with a group of Trainee Biomedical Scientists in a Biochemistry Laboratory and noticed a possible mistake...

In the "contents of tubes" section the following line is present...

"The substances may include anticoagulants (EDTA, lithium citrate, heparin) or a gel with intermediate density between blood cells and blood plasma."

It is a sodium salt of citrate which is used as an anticoagulant and a lithium salt of heparin.

Other than that it is a great article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs)

I changed "lithium citrate" in the above excerpt to "sodium citrate." I left heparin without a cation because the article later mentions a few different ones that are used. I don't really know what I'm talking about, and you seem to, so feel free to edit the article directly. :) --Loudsox 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gel component

Does anyone know the gel component of the vacutainer? Which seperates serum and blood cell? Or any similar products which works the same? Yes, its a polyester gel..not very pure polymer, hence the yellow color.

1943 or 1947?

There seems to be a difference in dates for the vacutainer. In the Handbook of Phlebotomy and Patient Service Techniques, 4th ed by Garland E. Pendergraph, page 4 states "Little change occured in either instrumentation or concepts until 1943 when an evacuated blood collection system, known as the VACUTAINER Brand, had its beginning."

The wikipedia page begins by stating it was developed in 1947. That is all the book mentions about the vacutainer up to this point. And so since I don't have any conclusive evidence for the actual timeline of the vacutainer, I will just bring this to everyone's attention. DestinyQx 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To this question,there is an answer on BD's homepage---"http://www.bd.com/aboutbd/history/".

Beside the number 1947,there is an explanation---"BD Vacutainer System Joseph Kleiner, hired by BD for his Multifit syringe with interchangeable parts, also brought with him a concept called the Evacutainer — a device to draw blood by vacuum through a needle into a test tube. The product, patented in 1949, evolved to become the BD Vacutainer Blood Collection System."

So I think It should be 1947.How about your opinion?

Order of Draw

It mentions that there is a proper order of draw but doesn't list it. Maybe this should be added?Wolfmankurd (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Currently the article does not fullful WP:LEAD --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these used all over the world and are the colours always the same?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be reviewed

Added GA review.

To narrow in scope at this point. Needs more on history. Needs more references. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General venepuncture vs discussion of brand

To maintain neutral point of view and appropriate focus should this page mainly consist of information on the history and specifics of the Vacutainer brand? Most of the rest of the information may fit better on a generic venepuncture or phlebotomy page. This should also prevent a lot of duplication of effort. Arfgab (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed out. Vacutainer is a brand name from BD. There are alternative brands of similar products: vacutainer by BD, Vacuette by Greiner, Monoject by Sherwood Davis & Geck, Monovette by Sarstedt etc etc etc. We can try to change the name to evacuated tube system. but in that case the tube holder and the needle system and the safety system might have to be included. What do you guys say to that ? --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuums (don't) suck

The article currently says that

the vacuum in the tube pulls blood through the needle and into the tube.

However, vacuums don't "pull" anything; it's higher pressure that pushes. (As when you're drinking through a straw: it's not the low pressure in your mouth that "sucks" up the liquid; it's the air pressure on the surface of the liquid in the glass that pushes the liquid up the straw to the area of lower pressure. Hence why you can't drink through a straw longer than 10 m since air pressure is not high enough to push water higher than 10 m.)

So there has to be some source of pressure at the other end that pushes the blood through the needle into the tube. Is that mechanical pressure? Blood pressure? Air pressure?

At any rate, the article should be corrected to remove the claim that the vacuum draws the blood through the needle. -- pne (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]