Talk:Intramuscular injection

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Question

Can anybody tell me what the recommended amount per intramuscular injection is, include deltoid, and ventroglutrial areas please. I am a nursing student, 18 days away from graduating and I am trying to disprove a question, in which my instructor accepted an answer of 4 mls per injection, and I gave 2 mls on my answer. This may have caused me to fail the entire program, because I failed this math test last week. I need expert help! Please reply asap to girlbronson@yahoo.com Thank in advance. 71.31.87.182 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

You can give up to 5ml in ventroglutrialm and no more tham 1ml in deltoid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.219.212 (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I can understand the confusion, because I was taught you can give up to a certain amount of cc's, but for the comfort of the patient, you would never want to inject more than 3 cc's in the same spot. Particularly, the deltoid. but, like all nursing questions....there is always more than one answer. The best answer is up to the teacher...oh wait....lol :o)66.229.6.62 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) good luck[reply]

Nursing Times article on Evidence base for Intramuscular injection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Intramuscular injection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 21:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

Overall, the article is really good. The only major issue is the lack of inline citations for certain sections. I have given a fail to 2a because the citation coverage is not as comprehensive as required for GA status, but this can soon be rectified. I have given a fail to 2c because, without the inline citations, it can only be assumed that the content is original research (although it probably is not). I would like to thank Berchanhimez for his excellent edits so far, and I hope that he will soon be able to resolve the minor issues raised. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

The current references are very good. However, there are large sections of text that remain unreferenced (such as the lead section, and the "Risks and complications" section). This needs to be rectified, but I imagine that it will not be too difficult. It would also be appreciated to have inline citations for the lead section as well. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: I try to avoid citing things in the lead specifically if I can for two reasons - one, because I have a very liberal view of MOS:LEADCITE and thus unless a specific piece of information is either not cited in the body (in the way presented) or is likely challenged, I tend to avoid it. The second reason I avoid it when I can is that it helps me ensure that I am not adding information in a lead which isn't already present in the body - if I feel the need to cite something in the lead, I always go try and ensure it's cited in the body first. I am happy to add citations if you feel any particular parts of the lead need citations, but would appreciate if you could point out what you feel should be re-cited in the lead - you can feel free to do this either here or with {{cn}} tags or edit window comments in the article as you prefer and I'll accept your judgement as to if it would be beneficial/necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risks and complications: I should have time to work on this tonight and I'll ensure that there's an inline citation at the end of every grouping of information that's cited - and I won't leave more than two sentences in a row before citing them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An update - User:Bibeyjj - I've gone through and done some work on more than just risks and complications. If you think any specific information still needs an inline citation please feel free to "call it out" here and I'll be more than able to do such. Thanks again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images included are relevant, well-captioned, and formatted correctly. I would appreciate an image for either the "Contraindications" or "Risks and complications" section. However, this is not strictly essential, and the current images are suitable, giving good coverage. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I unfortunately can't begin to think of an image for the contraindications section - it's quite hard to find images specific enough to an article to be relevant for what's almost always a short section anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After much searching, I finally found something I think helps provide an image for risks/complications - I exhausted everything I could think of to try and find an image actually of a reaction to a vaccine or other IM injection and unfortunately couldn't find a free image anywhere on the web (outside of Commons). Hopefully that helps. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

First, thanks for the review. I'll do my best to respond in a decent time frame - I surprisingly (coincidentally?) have a tad bit of free time to work on this tonight but with COVID spikes my real life has been hectic and sometimes unpredictable - I will update you as to my progress as I go. I've done what I can for the images, and will work on the citations tonight if I can or over the next few days - again it'd help greatly if you'd be able to point out any specific places you feel need more citations, but if not I'll do what I can and then have you take another look and see if it's acceptable. Thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Changes

Hi Berchanhimez! Thank you for your most recent edits. I completely agree with your interpretation of referencing the lead paragraph - as you say, everything is mentioned somewhere else in the article with a good reference. You have added good references where they were needed, so I have passed 2a and 2c. I also appreciate you looking for new images, which are really helpful. As such, this is a well-deserved Good Article.

Many congratulations! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that before the mid-1900s, intramuscular injections were primarily performed by physicians? Source: Nicoll LH, Hesby A (August 2002). "Intramuscular injection: An integrative research review and guideline for evidence-based practice". Applied Nursing Research. 15 (3): 149–162. doi:10.1053/apnr.2002.34142. PMID 12173166.

Improved to Good Article status by Berchanhimez (talk). Self-nominated at 03:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - You should probably add something like "by physicians rather than nurses" or something like that to show that it was different between then and current-day. Some people would not find it interesting because they might think that physicians are the ones who do it anyways. The source you linked says "Until the introduction ofantibiotics in the late 1940s, the administration ofmedications by the IM route was a skill that was al-most exclusively practiced by physicians". That would be interesting if you could incorporate that into the hook/article.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: See comment above. Everything else is good to go.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about any of the following? User:Bait30, apologies also for the delay - been a busy week for me and just now found time to work on this. Thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT0a: ... that before the introduction of antibiotics in the middle 20th century, intramuscular injections were primarily performed by physicians rather than nurses?
  • ALT1: ... that the introduction of antibiotics in the late 1940s led to physicians increasingly delegating the task of performing intramuscular injections to nurses?
  • ALT2: ... that intramuscular injections were primarily performed by physicians before the middle of the 20th century, when they were increasingly delegated to nurses in part due to the introduction of antibiotics?
I went ahead and added the antibiotics thing in the article since the hook-fact needs to be in the article. I think all three of these new hooks are good. Up to the prep builder to decide which one.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both ALT0a and ALT2 are unclear because "mid-1900s" can mean the middle of 1900–1909 (decade) and the middle of 1900–1999 (century); I wasn't able to access the source to determine which. ALT1 is problematic because the article doesn't mention the late 1940s at all; the article would need to have that level of specificity. If I may suggest, the article should go with the unambiguous "middle of the 20th century" if "mid-1900s" is approximating the middle of the century. Bait30, can you (or Berchanhimez) please confirm that the source does specifically refer to the introduction of antibiotics as one of the reasons for the switch? It isn't enough to add the fact to the article; all hook facts must be in the source used for said fact. (I've struck the original hook due to the issue raised with it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, here's a quote from the source: Until the introduction of antibiotics in the late 1940s, the administration of medications by the IM route was a skill that was al-most exclusively practiced by physicians (Stokes,Beerman, & Ingraham, 1944)... In 1961, Zelman noted that nurses had essen-tially taken over the procedure of IM injection. - I think the unambiguous 20th century is good and I'll work on improving it in the article tomorrow - I'm late to bed as it is now. I can see if it is too close to "synth" to include antibiotic use as a "reason", and am open to suggestions to improve the hook wording to make it better. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, fixed in the article and hook alts, also going to suggest an alt based on a different fact in case it's decided a different fact would be better altogether. It's based on a quote from doi:10.1111/jocn.12824 - The vast majority of these are given for curative purposes with 20 therapeutic injections being administered for every vaccination given. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that it is estimated that 20 intramuscular injections are given for therapeutic purposes, such as administering medication, for every one given to administer a vaccine?
  • Reviewer needed for ALT3, since the other hooks are problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berchanhimez Referring to ALT3, is it "20 intramuscular injections" or "over 20" of them? I can't access the source and the article states "over 20". SL93 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bait30 Okay. I removed the word "over" from the article. ALT3 is approved. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT3. In the hook, do you mean 20 different injections? And in the article, 20 other injections or 20 types of injections? Thanks for clarifying. Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bait30: SL93 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for being AWOL - been very busy recently - I agree with the change madee by Bait30 and SL93. The TLDR of it is that the source claims a 20:1 ratio of IM injections for therapeutic uses (ex: shots of antibiotics, steroids, etc) to IM injections for vaccine administration (which is what most people associate with them). This is an interesting factoid to me, but I agree that it's complicated to phrase it well. I personally think ALT3 is the best phrasing, but maybe clarifications in the article are necessary? I'll try to ponder and pop back in, but I'm exceedingly busy right now IRL and may not have much time (or I may forget) so apologies in advance for how long this nomination has taken. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I suggest rephrasing the hook:
  • ALT3a: ... that it is estimated that for every vaccine given through intramuscular injection, 20 injections are given to administer drugs or other therapy?Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, though, I think the hook is trying to make a point that laypeople might not care about. How about something short and sweet?
  • ALT4: ... that vaccines are commonly administered via intramuscular injection? Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SL93 I was hoping for something more "hooky" to draw more people into this, but if it's agreed that the 20:1 ratio is too problematic to make work then I'm fine with alt4. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4 is approved. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just seeing if someone can promote this hook since it was nominated over a month ago and neither Yoninah or I can promote it - pinging Cwmhiraeth and Amkgp. Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injection into fatty tissue

I would like to see some mention of injection into fatty tissues, especially insulin for patients who have some level of obesity as a side effect of the diabetes disease. It is actually recommended on the package of this medication to rotate injection sites from belly fat to thigh muscles/fat. While this is not technically into a muscle, it seems to have the same effects while providing a more convenient and comfortable site for injection. Gallomimia (talk)Gallomimia

Aspiration

Need a separate section for this, or even a separate article ("Aspiration recommendations around the world"?) Lawrence18uk (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section maybe. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

intramusculary injecton

How does it relate to prostrate cancer?  162.84.186.18 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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