Jump to content

Talk:Teledermatology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request edit on 5 May 2015

[edit]

Pristine launched the first Google Glass pilot in an emergency room at Rhode Island Hospital in April 2014.[1] It resulted in a peer-reviewed study published in JAMA Dermatology on the use of smartglasses in a healthcare environment. [2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ R.I. Hospital’s emergency department first to test Google Glass on medical conditions/Video
  2. ^ Feasibility and Acceptability of Google Glass for Emergency Department Dermatology Consultations
  3. ^ Rhode Island Hospital Uses Google Glass to Diagnose Skin Conditions
  4. ^ Patients Prefer Google Glass Over Telephone Consults, Study Finds
  5. ^ Google Glass In The ER? Health Care Moves One Step Closer To Star Trek …

Posting here on behalf of conflicted editor, Ahelsinger Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented Projects by Country

[edit]

I think this entire section needs to go. First, it only covers the UK. Second, it's being used as an advertisement for a specific product. Third, the references do not back up the statements in the section. If there is anything there that should be saved, please suggest a section for it. LaMona (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 28 2016 edits

[edit]

I'm trying to update with two teledermatology studies from Sweden, but another user keeps canceling my edits... Studies are published in peer-reviewed journals here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23785643 and here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23785643 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with that is that the study (and it's only one study, not two) is specifically on the use of two specific brand-name devices/apps (both of them developed in and sold from Sweden), so it's promotional to a large degree. Also, with a cohort of only 62 patients, it's not particularly definitive. That's why WP:MEDRS recommends "review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals ...." -- Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another study (the largest of its kind). It is still Swedish (if that's an issue), and uses a brand-name device/app (again, I'm not sure why that should impact the legitimacy of the results), but maybe it will move this discussion forward:http://www.medicaljournals.se/acta/content/?doi=10.2340/00015555-1906&html=1 YungCoconut (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2016
That is not a review or a statement by a major medical or scientific body. Why did you post it here? (that is a real question - please answer) Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I posted it here because it is scientific research that supports the edits I made. This study appeared in a peer-reviewed, scientific publication. Could you clarify what you mean by "a review or a statement by a major medical or scientific body" and why you think the publisher is NOT a major scientific body? YungCoconut (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "major medical/scientific body" is something like the National Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc. An article in the biomedical literature is not a statement by one of them. The article is what we call a primary source; it is not a literature review; see - and please do see - the definitions section of MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you linked states that "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." Which exactly described the most recent article I posted. From the 'About' section: "Acta Dermato-Venereologica is an international peer-reviewed journal for clinical and experimental research in the field of dermatology and venereology." Whether the NHS, CDC and NIH have issued an official statement on this research shouldn't invalidate the fact that research is happening, or the results of that research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it is a primary source as defined here: definitions - a research paper in the biomedical literature. Per MEDRS the source has to be a literature review in the biomedical literature or a statement by a major medical/scientific body (a secondary source); the source you are bringing is neither. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything being promoted contrary to policy by this edit. The "Vantage Rego is an example of" language seems promotional though.--Elvey(t•c) 05:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More edit warring - third revert by Jytdog, shifting goalposts. I don't see anything being promoted contrary to policy. I'd have to go to PubMed just to find out the name of the product(s) tested. --Elvey(t•c) 04:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a moment to read above, no one agrees that the edits were good; likewise at the ANI where you commented. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IDONTLIKEIT isn't a policy. YungCoconut agrees. And you seem to be selectively applying PROMO (as you shift goalposts and edit war). You're leaving the "Vantage Rego is an example of" language in. Why?--Elvey(t•c) 04:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes everyone knows that. The content was promotional and badly sourced - this is what everyone but you and the person who added it said. It is clear why you showed up based on our history and I strongly suggest you think twice before you continue what you are doing here; you know how this has ended up in the past. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you're rude and counterfactual. You don't like it, and you don't have policy or consensus on your side. And you're assuming bad faith. I was at ANI editing when I saw this page being discussed. But will you apologize for assuming bad faith and being threatening. I'm not expecting you to. I strongly suggest you stop edit warring. --Elvey(t•c) 04:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the ANI filing was premature and thoroughly shot down. Well let's see if anybody else here comes to support the position you are taking here. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By whom, I wonder. You're up to your old tricks. I say ...You're leaving the "Vantage Rego is an example of" language in. Why? and you attack me. Answer the question. Thanks. And let's see who shows up to support the positions you're taking here- to defend your edit warring, goalpost shifting, assuming bad faith, and threatening, uncivil comments. Cheers.--Elvey(t•c) 05:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were at the ANI as you noted here and you saw exactly how folks responded there; you commented there just before coming here so presumably you read what others wrote there. As I said, let's see who else watching this page believes that the edit should be retained. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're being extremely uncivil. I've asked you the same question thrice and youv'e ignored me thrice. ARBCOM has disciplined you for being uncivil before. Do you want to keep your editing privileges? Let's see who shows up to support the positions you're taking here- to defend your edit warring, goalpost shifting, assuming bad faith, and threatening, uncivil comments. Are you communicating off-wiki about what's going on on-wiki? --Elvey(t•c) 05:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you commented at ANI and saying let's see how the consensus develops is normal Talk page behavior. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now drawn your attention to the same reasonable question four times and you've ignored the question four times. That's not civil. I've asked you about your use of undisclosed alternative accounts and you've avoided that question too. When you shift tactics (from bogus policy claims to threats and then when they fall flat) to !votes, I'm reminded of that.
Will you and have you always adhered to the prohibitions at WP:ILLEGIT in your use of an undisclosed alternative accounts, specifically the prohibitions from: Editing project space, Circumventing policies or sanctions, Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny?
Oh and what is it you think I am doing here; I don't know what you're referring to. And there you go again, telling me what I know. You said the ANI filing was thoroughly shot down, as if it had been closed since I'd commented; that's why I said, "By whom, I wonder." In fact, there's been no activity on the filing since I commented on it. Since you insist on violating CIVIL with every 'reply', I'm done responding to you. --Elvey(t•c) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teledermatology&oldid=1203602143"