Talk:Cardiology diagnostic tests and procedures

misc

The topic of echocardiography is covered at medical ultrasonography, so here it's redundant. Besides, this page should be more of an overview page -- one that provides annotated pointers to more descriptive articles on heart diagnostics. --Diberri 02:29, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

---

Too pithy. Wikipedia is not paper. Coronary angiography is not identical to cardiac catheterization. - Nunh-huh 03:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. However, this page should be short and easy to skim (which is why I restructured the article from its original text-heavy format). Your lengthy explanations belong in separate articles, not in this brief overview page. --Diberri 04:09, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you're sparing people from reading. Good plan for an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 04:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this page should not be easy to skim? --Diberri 04:51, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying [1] you've cut out good information from [2] a page that was not too long to skim. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And the page still lacks "cardiac catheterization" and "electrophysiological studies". - Nunh-huh 04:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you've missed my point. Yes, I've summarized or removed some of your "good" information. And as you noted, the page was not previously too long to skim.

But my contention isn't about page length, per se, or about the quality of information on this page. It's about the ease with which readers can efficiently find relevant information and follow links to more descriptive articles. Just because you added good information to the page doesn't mean it was appropriate. This page would do well if it functioned like many other list pages, such as list of medical topics, which presents an orderly list of annotated topics.

Regarding your last point, please feel free to add cardiac catheterization and electrophysiological studies to this list. Edit boldly. --Diberri 05:27, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

• I might not be concise enough. I leave it for you. You already removed catheterization once. - Nunh-huh 05:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've restructured the page with your comments in mind. Still easy to skim (IMO), plus there's more description for each topic. Compromise is a beautiful thing. --Diberri 20:01, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take out good information unless you are willing to put it somewhere else that you think is better. 69.87.202.224 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a Bad Thing to try to remove all duplication from wikipedia. Electrons/bits are cheap. Readers often don't know to follow links to get important information. Please feel free to add context-appropriate summaries of information to an article, even if it is repeated elsewhere in more complete detail. 69.87.200.159 02:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NOGA mapping

Could someone write a short bit on NOGA mapping, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 18:46, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

Blood tests

Why is the U.S.A. so far behind the rest of the World in not adopting mmols as the standard unit of most blood tests?--Anthony.bradbury 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, in the UK LDL is routinely measured; it, and the ratio with HDL, are critically important in assessing cardiac risk.--Anthony.bradbury 00:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

mistake in section 3.4: Cardiac stress testing

It seems there is a typo here. I would have fixed it myself, but I can't make head of tails of it.

Radionuclide testing using thallium or technetium can be used tos of perfusion abnormalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carel.jonkhout (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)