Talk:Intraosseous infusion

---

Untitled

Possibly add this into the I/O_(disambiguation) page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.140.233.16 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

May be worth citing the military amplification of I/O with respect to rapid response, combat trauma, etc.; reflect the context of how I/O is normalized in military-centered medical operations and its drift to non-military usage 71.17.149.4 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.Sallee,UCSF, J Tate, Future UCSF Pharm.D., Jgoucsf. Peer reviewers: K. Morioka, Kjaguilar, J.Miranda, Future UCSF Pharm.D..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Systematic review in adults

doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1277-6 JFW | T@lk 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Request adding information and photos on Pyng Medical's two new Sternal Intraosseous Infusion Devices: 1. FASTResponder Sternal IO: Released in 2013 - 2. FASTTactical Sternal IO: Released in 2016 -

In addition, our FAST1 Sternal IO is still available and has been available since 2000 -

Full disclosure: This request is being made by Pyng Medical for the purpose of updating currently available Sternal Intraosseous Infusion Devices. 96.44.122.156 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you haven't proposed any specific changes to be considered by an outside editor (requests like adding information on 2 new devices cannot be completed by an independent editor, who are there to look at the neutrality and verifiability of proposed changes), this proposal shouldn't use the edit request template, instead just being a talkpage request for related editors to improve the article. You may wish to reopen the request with the proposed text to be considered. Request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Possible error - knowledgeable person please check

I'm not familiar with this subject but a decent grasp of English suggests to me that the person who typed the quoted sentence may have made an error:

"The IO site can be used for 24 hours and should be removed as soon as intravenous access has been gained."

It seems to me that the word(s) for whatever it is that should be removed has been left out - this sentence seems to suggest you should remove the site, which strikes me as an impossibility.

So if someone can check - please and thanks.

Mathsgirl (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing goals

1. Improve and expand article organization.

2. Add new references and replace inappropriate references.

3. Improve article writing

J.Sallee,UCSF (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Content categories: 1. History 2. Indications for use 3. Procedure 4. Complications 5. Special populations 6. Devices J.Sallee,UCSF (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is very concise and well written. I was impressed by how the article had many headers that explained the indications, procedures, contraindications, etc.… This made for a great summary of what intraosseous infusion is. The edits that were made substantially improved the article.

The group did achieve their overall goals for improvement. They did expand the article and make it more organized by adding the headers. There are now a total of 32 references in the article and the article is easy to read and is written in layman’s terms. All goals for improvement were met.

The points that were included were in fact verifiable. All the sources that I checked were peer reviewed or secondary, and were freely available. I feel as though the group did a very well job in using excellent peer reviewed sources meanwhile making the article a well written piece explaining intraosseous infusion.

Gtchapanian (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Part 1: The article was very well organized. The members of this article added some great additional information such as a background history section and organized the article with additional information, for instance special populations section which expanded more on the importance of intraosseus infusion within this population.

The group accomplished their goal of editing the article making more insightful with relevant information.

Part 2: The edits are consistent with the wikipedia's manual of style. All sections are organized with the appropriate headers and each section is beneficial and relevant to the article. The tone is also neutral. Something that needs to be fixed is that there is a citation has an error for "Check date values in:".

Kjaguilar (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This group improved and expanded on the article organization. They expanded on every content category they listed. I am unsure if the article writing has changed as there was few content in the article before they started to edit, however, looking at the article as a whole, it is easy to read and I feel it can be understood by a lay person not in the medical or health field. For special populations I am not sure if they intend to include another subset of population besides pediatric. It seems the pediatric population is where most IO occurs and has most guidelines for this population, but it would be interesting to learn more about the trends/use of IO in other populations as well such as the geriatric population.

J.Miranda, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Overall the tone of the article is neutral. Under the complications section, the first sentence sounds like the author could make the leading sentence, “Like all procedures, intraosseous infusion has some potential complications”, into a more neutral tone such as “Intraosseous infusion has potential complications.” Under pediatric special populations, the first sentence using “demonstrably superior” could come off as non-neutral. It only has one source, so unsure if this can be greater supported by more than one source or author could add in more citations at the end of this sentence. There is a lot of the word "most" in the third paragraph of the pediatric subtopic which may be redundant (preffered vs. most preferred), but unclear if the author wanted to really emphasize this. Adding a complications section improved the neutrality of this article. All in all, great job. J.Miranda, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Part 1: a) Yes, the group's edits substantially improve the article using the guiding framework! The content is well-organized and seems balanced and without apparent bias or agenda (other than providing information). The references are largely secondary sources including review articles and guidelines. My one suggestion regarding the guiding framework would be to review the opening paragraph to see if it can be simplified to be more in layman's terms, or just simplified in general, to improve clarity. (e.g., using 'used' instead of 'utilized' gives a less jargon-y tone, IMO).
b) Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. The article organization has been revamped into logical sections consistent with other medical procedure pages. Entire sections were rewritten to include references to secondary sources and clear, non-persuasive language, though there are some paragraphs that could be further edited to improve flow and clarity (e.g. Indications) and/or resolve minor grammar errors and typos.
Part 2:
The edits do for the most part use language that support diversity, equity, and inclusion, and could be improved upon. There is a Special populations section for Pediatrics. There are still some places throughout the article where "patients" is used where other language could be appropriate, such as "individuals" or "children" - and this is already done smoothly in other places throughout the article. --
K. Morioka (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference Verification

J Tate, Future UCSF Pharm.D. edited the reference section so that all dates are displayed in the correct format. a total of 6 dates had to be corrected. J.Sallee,UCSF combined duplicate references. references #1 & #11 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference #1. Jgoucsf ensured that all references were appropriately formatted in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. We believe that no predatory publications were identified. J Tate, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)