Talk:Cardiac stress test

message: There are two real ways to confuse a user.  One is to write a bunch of poorly connected or conveyed information.  The other is to write in big, long, difficult to process junk.
This article has a few very big paragraphs.  Short, one-sentence paragraphs appear childish; but very, very long paragraphs are difficult to break down.  Paragraphs should be most ideally 3-6 sentences, each with a few clauses.  Such a paragraph would be about the size of this one, perhaps a little shorter or a little longer; discretion with semi-colons is also important, as a single paragraph may be very long.
There are a few very, very large paragraphs in this article that need to be broken up and rewritten.  This will aid in clarity.  Check out Further Research especially; the contributors seem to have tried to address individual bullet points in single paragraphs, without brievarity.  Try making better use of subsections.
::You are always welcome to suggest revisions yourself, this being the user-edited encyclopedia and all, rather than just pointing these things out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.244.81 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing, long Paragraphs 

message: [I removed a very long, poorly-formatted copy-and-paste from this page posted by User:128.249.29.35 on 15:46, 30 May 2006, under this heading here. While the information was probably helpful, I assume it was a copyright violation; at any rate, it was near impossibe to read. Dyfsunctional 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaccurate specificity figure given for nuclear stress test 

message: Let me submit then that dropping dead is possible (nonzero risk) after any cardiac diagnostic procedure by any measure by any statistical model.  Still does not serve any point of informing anyone about exercise stress testing.  Perhaps the wording is the problem -- perhaps "The risk of cardiac events leading to death and morbidity is never zero, nor is it implied by a relatively outcome on stress treadmill testing".  When a layperson reads an article that says they can still "drop dead" after a procedure that is designed to assess risk, they may assume that it is inferior to ones that don't explicitly use this language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw2727 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropping dead -- further discussion 

message: I am a journalist/editor at Consumer Reports. 
I am reviewing this article according to the instructions at WP:HealthReview.
I suggest changing the article in the following ways:
• Start with a clear description of the test.
• Explain what the test is for.
• Describe who needs the test.
• Simplify the language
• Assume you are writing for a patient who is deciding whether he or she needs the test, not for the doctor. 
• Make it clear that there are risks and benefits to this test, and explain what they are. 
I think that this article could be improved by adding this statement:
This reference supports the above statement:
• Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, Pohost GM, Williams KA. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2201–29.
• http://choosingwisely.org/?page_id=13 [NOTE: This is a link to the Choosing Wisely website, which includes recommendations from professional medical organizations regarding the appropriate use of, among other things, stress cardiac imaging.]
Thank you for your attention. Jkeehn (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: My review of this article

message: I removed the further reading section of this article - see here. I am not sure what the intent of this was but it seemed to be text copied from elsewhere without copying the hyperlinks which used to be embedded in the text. I say this because the links had dates of retrieval, which were not relevant in this context. None of the resources seemed to me to be well-curated or anything other than what a person could find in a search engine search, so I removed them.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed further reading

message: The hatnote currently reads, "Not to be confused with Cardiac arrest." Can someone explain why this is a likely source of confusion? Or if not, is it okay simply to remove the hatnote? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree such confusion is unlikely. I will remove. BakerStMD T|C 17:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious hatnote: confusion with Cardiac arrest 

message: This article really is not in great shape. It dances around, repeats over and over and overlaps with many similar articles - I took a run at one small section - I am not a big fan of traditional stress testing - the value in 2023 is highly questionable.
As part of a 'tick the box' process - it has marginal value - and the article does state this - it really is an old way of looking at cardiac health - 
Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely needs to be completely redone.