Talk:Bispectral index

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is advertising

This article is basically free advertising. There are a number of studies that show the limits to this device. BIS is _not_ an accepted method for determining the depth of anaesthesia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezzera (talk • contribs)

Give sources, websites, studies, newspaper articles (nothing unverified though). If you want to add criticism adding sources will greatly improve your arguement than you just saying it's wrong. Dmanning 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no official recommendations. I just read the Spanish paper. They do _not_ specifically recommend BIS monitoring. If you really wanted to look Medline is full of papers showing inaccurate BIS readings including "therapeutic" numbers from brain-dead patients! Just look and see, there are many. Bezzera —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bezzera (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are also a number (hundreds) of excellent studies showing the value of many forms of EEG based depth of anesthesia (level of consciousness) monitoring including BIS and other methods. A good, and apparently objective, summary of what is recently available was recently published in Br J Anaesth. Depth of anaesthesia monitoring: what's available, what's validated and what's next? 2006 Jul;97(1):85-94. Epub 2006 Jun 2, by Bruhn J, Myles PS, Sneyd R, Struys MM. Anything new is not "accepted" (accepted as used here seems to mean the formal approval of a "practice advisory") by the medical community until many, many scientific and political challenges have been overcome. The substantial and rapid growth and acceptance of this technology in operating rooms seems to attest that it is providing benefits. --Bitsbear 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patented but not Public?

From the Article "the calculation algorithm that the BIS monitor uses is patented, and the company refuses to make the algorithm public"

Either it is patented and therefore public, or it is not public and therefore not patented. It can not be both as every patent is public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.6.110 (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave editing notes in the article. That's why there's a talk page to begin with. — 75.144.110.148 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The algorithm could be patented in such a way that key details of the company's own implementation are omitted.
E.g. the patent could describe an algorithm that records "a period of data, preferably with a duration of ten to sixty seconds". That is OK for a patent, but doesn't tell you which specific value the company have chosen to use in their implementation.
—DIV
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(1.145.32.254 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Cochrane

If anybody thinks that Cochrane is a none recognized association and that what they publish is rubbish then i could agree with you but on 2007 they published a metanalisis review in which they recognized level one on evidence for BIs monitoring for avoiding awareness in high risk patients and proven reduction in drug dosage...so until now Bis method is the most reliable one that we have to titrate hypnotics. Pulseoximtery failed in demonstrating under a metanalisis its benefits and nobody thinks pulseoximetry is not a help...i think we need to give the real value to each tool and obviously BIS is just a tool to help us to guide our practice in a better way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.177.181.13 (talk) 4 September 2008

Needs an expert

This article has a jumble of unresolved {fact} tags, but I'm just a wikignome and not sure where to look for the strong, appropriate citations needed (nor how to include them). Also, it seems like some sections could be consolidated. I've added an {expert-subject} tag to ask for help. — VoxLuna ☾ orbitland   23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The needed dispute of the neutrality of this article has gone beyond the pale

I've just added a POV article tag. I'll not iterate through all the wheres, whys and therefores. Please just click 'article' and peruse. All the best! Fylbecatulous talk 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite awful from "BIS relevance" down. I think that the POV sections should just be cut straight out and attempts to revert can then be justified. The central BIS relevance paragraph can then be pruned down to facts and the grammar improved. If there are no complaints I will move on this soon. --IcyEd (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints here. Certainly the "COUNTERPOINT" section violates (WP:IMPARTIAL) with it's claims about "Big Pharma", "the financial interest of the ASA", etc. and should be deleted. --LaoKtn (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the POV tag. The above discussion had been dormant for more than 5 years, and at least some of the material objected to is no longer present. If anyone is inclined to replace the tag, please explain why in detail on this talk page. Better yet, just "SoFixIt" instead of placing the tag.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bispectral index. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

As this appears to be a (trademarked) brand name, I propose that the article title and usage throughout the article be amended to "Bispectral Index". —DIV
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
(1.145.32.254 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bispectral_index"