Talk:Fine-needle aspiration

Countries

"Countries with the most developed aspiration biopsy are, Slovenia and India. At Karolinska hospital (Stockholm, Sweden), the annual volume averages eleven thousand aspirates; at Institute of Oncology (Ljubljana, Slovenia) ten thousand. Within the USA, the highest volume is encountered at MD Anderson (Houston, TX) with an annual volume of seven thousand aspirates."

That paragraph seems almost like an ad. What's its point here? Who cares?

Dougher 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a medical article but information for patients. A big difference. jmak 06:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

External link to Wikisurgery covering fine needle aspiration biopsy ?

Wikisurgery has an article on fine needle aspiration biopsy containing information not covered in the main Wipedia article on needle aspiration biopsy.[1]

Wikipedia already has external links to Wikipedia articles ieScalpelRetractor (medical)Needle Haemostat Needle holder Forceps Scissors Surgical sutures

Would the editors care to include an external link to Wikisurgery's Needle aspiration biopsy article?Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Needle Biopsy of Prostate

Why is there not anything about this? And, the potential there for complications is great. It is much feared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Long cguuchg. Notok the problem asert,,mteersninok 174.76.177.51 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Move to Fine needle aspiration

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn. See revised RM below (uncontroversial, so non-admin close). Noetica^Tea? 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Needle aspiration biopsy → Fine needle aspiration – When scholar-googling "needle aspiration", a vast majority of results say "fine needle aspiration" rather than "Needle aspiration biopsy". Actually, it can be argued that "needle aspiration biopsy" is technically inaccurate in the sense of a biopsy as sampling of solid or soft tissue in its histological context, while needle aspiration is actually rather a form of cytology. Indeed many google results say "cytology" rather than "biopsy". Thus, renaming the article to "Fine needle aspiration" better reflects common usage, and would spare us from a potentially long discussion whether biopsy or cytology would be the preferred terminology. Also, usage of "fine" helps in distinguishing the topic from the rather "thick" needle used in bone marrow aspiration, which seems to be outside the scope of this article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google ngrams show that the two forms can hardly be distinguished, though of course they do not account for differences in meaning. I might support a move to Fine-needle aspiration; but I will not support a move from one ill-formed title to another. See WP:MOS, at WP:HYPHEN. See ngram evidence for needle aspiration biopsy,fine needle aspiration,needle - aspiration biopsy,fine - needle aspiration (Google requires those spaces around a hyphen); and for British usage, and for American usage. Noetica^Tea? 02:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Fine-needle aspiration

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Needle aspiration biopsy → Fine-needle aspiration – As Noetica pointed out in Ngrams for the terms, the format "Fine-needle aspiration" is now more common in usage than "Fine needle aspiration". It can also be seen that these two, taken together, are more than twice as common in usage as "Needle aspiration biopsy" and "Needle-aspiration biopsy" taken together [2]. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The present title is not in accord with WP style guidelines. The proposed title is in accord. See WP:MOS, at WP:HYPHEN. And see ngram evidence for needle aspiration biopsy,fine needle aspiration,needle - aspiration biopsy,fine - needle aspiration (Google requires those spaces around a hyphen); and for British usage, and for American usage.

Noetica^Tea? 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

regarding "It has been suggested that this article be merged with FNA Mapping."

That other article is about FNA for testes, so it seems reasonable to just rename that one and link to it rather than merging with it -- and the top-of-page suggestion about merging should be removed as it just distracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmcl2 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor, including the rename: the other article has a very specific focus, and I don't see why it is titled "Mapping". Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)