Talk:Negative-pressure wound therapy

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into negative pressure wound therapy. -- Where next Columbus? (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

---

It seems like the article vacuum assisted closure wound therapy (with the redir VAC therapy) is just a variant of negative pressure wound therapy. However, I'm not a doctor, so I would like some feedback before actually commencing with the merger, or better yet - that some kind soul who is more familiar with the terminology either describes the correct term, whichever it is (the VAC therapy article does sound a bit promotional/brand-name-ish to me), or merges the articles him/herself.. Where next Columbus? (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge. They're the same thing [1]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with a merge.Noles1984 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. And thaks for spotting the self-promo, WLU! Where next Columbus? (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spammy, self-promoting and unreliable

OK, the page seems to be attracting spam and unreliable sources. I've removed a lot of non pubmed-indexed journals and non journals (I'm DISGUSTED!!!) that were used as citations. The Cochrane review should be the most prominent source regards effectiveness, and without reliable, peer-reviewed sources, no other claims should be made. I'm guessing either the researchers or companies are spamming the page with rah-rah nonsense. A focus group is NOT a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Author's Conclusion of the Cochrane review, despite appearing to support a positive conclusion, is flatly contradicted by the rest of the review itself. I have contacted the Cochrane Collaboration for clarification and will post the reply to WP:OTRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted a member of the Cochrane Collaboration and her reply was that the conclusion is incorrect, the body is the correct section. I've asked her if she minds her response to be posted with OTRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For a medium that is supposed to be unbiased, there sure is a lot of visual promotion of the KCI VAC system. Please compare this to the other dozens of NPWT systems all judged by medicare as being equal. Look it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.110.74 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But we don't have a dozen pictures, nor should we post them if you do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be at least 1 photo for a competitive product, otherwise this should be considered hypocritical based on the wikipedia rules.

Also, the references listed are primarily from the inventor of the photographed product - who licenesed it to KCI. Whether you realize it or not, this page is biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.110.74 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find and upload a comparable image that meets our image use policy requirements, you are welcome to do so. In the meantime the page is improved by the presence of images. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it seems a bit more unbiased, reference (G11)

reference G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.110.74 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Help making improvements

I think that this article can be improved quite a lot and would like to ask for help in expanding and rewriting its content, making it a better resource on the topic and bringing it more in line with Wikipedia's standards. I am introducing myself here before editing the article myself, or proposing any new material/changes to the existing material, as I have a working relationship with Kinetic Concepts, a medical technology company that develops (among other things) V.A.C. Therapy. Having read up on Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:COI, I know that working with KCI means that I have a potential conflict of interest for edits related to the company and its products, however I want to stress that I'm committed to following all Wikipedia's policies and will always look for advice from other editors. In particular, I will not be making any controversial edits without first gaining consensus from uninvolved editors. I'm looking forward to working with other editors to create a great article on this topic and will have some draft material in my user space soon, for you to take a look at. Please let me know in the meantime if you can offer any helpful advice or suggestions on how to make this a better article. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft material for review

As I had posted here last week, I'm interested in improving this article and making it a better resource about negative pressure wound therapy. In the last few months I've been drafting some new material for the article and have developed a new version of it, which I am hoping that some other editors can review for me and offer any feedback or help with implementing changes. Since I do have a working relationship with KCI, a firm involved with this medical technology, I've been very careful to make sure that I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines with regards to the content and writing style of my draft, however it can only help to have an unbiased editor (or several) read through and give me their thoughts on it.

I've uploaded my article into a subpage that I've linked from my userpage:

• Draft Negative pressure wound therapy article

The current article is not the most clear or comprehensive resource on NPWT and relies on relatively few sources, given the amount of coverage that is available about this technology. In particular, the article doesn't elaborate on the uses on NPWT or the various techniques that may be used. The Effectiveness section focuses only on the Cochrane Review and does not mention a more recent independent review that has been carried out, nor does it provide details of the many studies of NPWT that have been undertaken. In my draft, I've incorporated the current material and added more detail, using reliable sources to support any facts. I've written a longer Overview section, providing more information about the uses of NPWT and adding some history of its development, and extended the Technique section to give a better overview of the different types of dressing in use, and the methods of use. In the Effectiveness section, as well as adding information on various studies, I also created a subsection on cost effectiveness, having found a lot of source material that mentioned this. Finally, I created a new section on NPWT's use by the military and in the home.

My draft is a much longer article than the current version, so I'm happy for it to be reviewed section by section if that makes more sense. I'm open to any constructive feedback and would also be glad to answer questions that you might have about any of the material. Let me know what you think. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now moved my draft over, following positive comments and encouragement to "be bold" from other editors on my user talk page. Questions or comments on the new version of the article would be most welcome. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• In that case, I'll copypaste my comments from that draft talkpage, just so they aren't lost:

User:BexarTech wisely requested comments on this draft revision. While interesting, it has the air of promotional material. If the article is about the therapy, most of the material on manufacturers, specific device types, and their regulatory approvals should be cut. Except for a transient mention, we normally focus on established non-proprietary names for devices and drugs.

With regard to references, we avoid primary sources so far as possible, and then if unavoidable, we use them with circumspection. See wp:MEDRS and wp:PSTS for details. I'd suggest trying to stick with sources on this list for starters. To avoid any appearance of selection bias, I would recommend that you favour broad systematic reviews, particularly ones which are fairly current. Given the stated (thank you) COI potential, you may want to have a compiled set of e-copies of those references handy that you can pass along to an independent reviewer. This is particularly pertinent to backing up any statements that bear upon your interests.

On the direct content, I'll defer comment until later, except for terminology:

• "negative" pressure is a misnomer. It is simply "reduced below ambient", but it is still above zero. As the term seems to be in regretably common usage, I wouldn't propose going against that usage, but rather that you provide a simple explanatory note to clarify it.
  • Zero pressure is a vacuum; to imply there is anything less than this is meaningless. Also, remember that this is a medical term, and "positive pressure" is used for several therapies. Norman21 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• the article's working title is "negative pressure wound therapy", hence NPWT comes up a lot. I'd vary that with "the therapy", "these techniques", "these devices", "these dressings" etc. when that is sufficiently clear.
• the alternate names given, "topical negative pressure", "sub-atmospheric pressure dressings", "vacuum-assisted closure", and "vacuum sealing technique" should be either explicitly distinguished from each other or stated to be equivalent. If they are equivalent, the article should prefer the most commonly used name in the reviews.

Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 20:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Pasted here.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog, thanks for your notes on my draft for this article and sorry I didn't spot them on the draft's talk page before I moved it over. Your comments are most helpful and I will try to address them as much as I am able. I would like to reaffirm that the article isn't intended to be promotional and I have tried as much as possible to keep it neutral and focus on the technique and devices. One thing I should note is that where I have mentioned specific products, this is to differentiate as certain devices have different indications for use and studies carried out use specific devices, so results can only be attributed to those devices.

Now that the article is live, other editors are of course free to make changes as they see fit, though I hope to continue my involvement in the article. I've made a few edits based on your notes, alternating the use of NPWT with the phrases you suggest. However, I get an error message when I click on the list of references you suggest, so if you re-link it I can give it a look. Cheers, BexarTech (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so do I. I must have misunderapprehended the usage of pubmed's "recent activity" links. You can see them by querying PubMed for "negative pressure wound therapy" review thus. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Trim

The page was a grotesque bloat of product placement and advertising. I trimmed it. This is an encyclopedia, the page should be about NPWT in general, not one particular company's product. It's noted that Kinetic Concepts had the first FDA-approved product, that's sufficient, particularly given the unreliable evidence base. We should describe, using medically reliable, secondary sources. I have never seen a high-quality medical article spend large amounts of time discussing so many primary studies, nor do I think it's worth talking about how well it works with pigs, unless it finds significant veterinary applications. I really, really didn't like how many news and business magazine stories were cited. If an article has a registered trademark or copyright symbol in the title, it's probably not worth citing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Negative-pressure wound therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929111834/http://www.biomech.com/full_article_printfriendly/?ArticleID=628&month=9&year=2005&fromdb=archives to http://www.biomech.com/full_article_printfriendly/?ArticleID=628&month=9&year=2005&fromdb=archives
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929111853/http://www.biomech.com/full_article_printfriendly/?ArticleID=215&month=4&year=2007&fromdb=archives to http://www.biomech.com/full_article_printfriendly/?ArticleID=215&month=4&year=2007&fromdb=archives

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Negative-pressure wound therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821161825/http://mediligence.com/blog/2009/10/24/negative-pressure-wound-therapy-gauze-and-foam/ to http://mediligence.com/blog/2009/10/24/negative-pressure-wound-therapy-gauze-and-foam/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)