Talk:Einthoven's triangle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): APuma1. Peer reviewers: Nicolecutrone, Kbrodowski1, MollyOshinski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Future Edits / Possible Sources

I plan on going into detail on the basis of Einthoven's Triangle and why leads are placed where. I believe this information is lacking in the article's current form. I would also like to discuss what would happen if the leads were placed incorrectly.

Here is a list of sources that I believe could be helpful in improving this article.

Pages 99-101 of Cardiopulmonary System Structure and Function by Daniel R Richardson, David Clark Randall, and Dexter F Speck Pages 34-35 of Cardiovascular Physiology Concepts by Richard E Klabunde Pages 258-259 of Handbook of Cardiac Anatomy, Physiology, and Devices by Paul A Iaizzo Page 4 in Understanding Electrocardiography by Mary Boudreux Conover

APuma1 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

APuma1, I think the edits you are planning to make are relevant and necessary. Additionally, I believe adding information on the incorrect positioning of leads is important. The sources you have included in your sandbox all appear reputable and informative. The information (for what I presume is the lead) you have written in your sandbox thus far is partially repetitive compared to the current article, however, I am not sure whether or not you planned to edit the existing information in the article and/or add to it. The sentence about the placement of the leads, proximal or distal, is new information that I think will be placed well within the lead section. I think your approach to expand on the physics of how the leads work and the history of Einthoven's triangle (if this is brief in comparison to the rest of the information) will be a great improvement to the article. --Kbrodowski1 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

APuma1, I think the information you had added thus far is an excellent contribution to the article. In terms of the already existing lead, I think you could improve it by adding a source to the last sentence about the string galvanometer and possibly expanding on the subject to increase its relevance to the article. The section on Electrode Placement contains a lot of relevant and useful information but there are some aspects already stated in the lead such as the sentence about the imaginary equilateral triangle with the heart at the center. I also like the information you added about the electric field and depolarization and eventually expanding on those will make the article that much more informative. I agree with you that for article to be at its best it is necessary to include more information on the physics and history of the triangle. --Nicolecutrone (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

APuma1, I think the information you've added is very beneficial. There seems to be a mistake in the "Using Einthoven's Triangle to Identify Lead Misplacements" section. It says lead II from lead II in one of the middle sentences and I think it was meant to be lead III instead. This is a minor fix and just for clarity purposes. I think explaining the physics behind it was very helpful in understanding where this came from. I think there could potentially be more information on how it used to be used if that information is out there, I think that it would be interesting to know. Overall,excellent additions to this article! --MollyOshinski (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"No longer used"

The article reads, "Einthoven's triangle is no longer used in contemporary ECGs". What does this even mean? In what way is it no longer "used?" 100.40.6.156 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)