Talk:Intraoperative floppy iris syndrome
Latest comment: 6 years ago by MapleRisotto in topic Footnotes 2 and 3
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Intraoperative floppy iris syndrome.
|
Footnotes 2 and 3
editNothing in the abstracts listed support the claim being footnoted. Without paid access to the journals cited to read the full papers, one can't verify or evaluate the validity of the claim. Is this standard wiki policy? Sorry, not an active editor so really don't know, or know how to find out in a reasonable amount of time.
My gut says the claim feels unlikely to be reliably supported within the populations used in the cited studies, and the protocol described for the (2) citation sounds like it explicitly couldn't. Ramatsu (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are entirely correct. I reviewed the full text of both of those articles and neither said anything of the kind. Looking at the edit history, the unsubstantiated sentence in question had been inserted into the Wikipedia article later in time but immediately before those two references, which were already there because they applied to the previous sentence. It wasn't a problem with the references, but with the sentence inserted later. I edited the article and removed the incorrect sentence. MapleRisotto (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)