Talk:Vacutainer

message: Hi.  I have removed this article from the Wikipedia:Good article listing due to the following:
*No references.  One of the GA criteria is that a reference section must be provided.  Inline citations are preferred but not required.  When this issue has been addressed, please feel free to re-nominate.  Thanks! Air.dance 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your comment on your talk page, I've relisted it.  I also took the opportunity to add a references section. :-) --TreyHarris 05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great and is GA material all the way.  Sorry about the mix-up! Air.dance 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: Hi,
Just used your article for a session with a group of Trainee Biomedical Scientists in a Biochemistry Laboratory and noticed a possible mistake...
In the "contents of tubes" section the following line is present...
"The substances may include anticoagulants (EDTA, lithium citrate, heparin) or a gel with intermediate density between blood cells and blood plasma."
It is a sodium salt of citrate which is used as an anticoagulant and a lithium salt of heparin. 
Other than that it is a great article.
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.139.11 (talk • contribs) 
:I changed "lithium citrate" in the above excerpt to "sodium citrate."  I left heparin without a cation because the article later mentions a few different ones that are used.  I don't really know what I'm talking about, and you seem to, so feel free to edit the article directly.  :)  --Loudsox 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithium Citrate? 

message: There seems to be a difference in dates for the vacutainer.  In the Handbook of Phlebotomy and Patient Service Techniques, 4th ed by Garland E. Pendergraph, page 4 states "Little change occured in either instrumentation or concepts until 1943 when an evacuated blood collection system, known as the VACUTAINER Brand, had its beginning."
The wikipedia page begins by stating it was developed in 1947.  That is all the book mentions about the vacutainer up to this point.  And so since I don't have any conclusive evidence for the actual timeline of the vacutainer, I will just bring this to everyone's attention. DestinyQx 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1943 or 1947? 

message: It mentions that there is a proper order of draw but doesn't list it. Maybe this should be added?Wolfmankurd (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Draw

message: Currently the article does not fullful WP:LEAD --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Added GA review. 
*To narrow in scope at this point.  Needs more on history.  Needs more references. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs to be reviewed

message: To maintain neutral point of view and appropriate focus should this page mainly consist of information on the history and specifics of the Vacutainer brand? Most of the rest of the information may fit better on a generic venepuncture or phlebotomy page. This should also prevent a lot of duplication of effort. Arfgab (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well pointed out. Vacutainer is a brand name from BD. There are alternative brands of similar products: vacutainer by BD, Vacuette by Greiner, Monoject by Sherwood Davis & Geck, Monovette by Sarstedt etc etc etc. We can try to change the name to evacuated tube system. but in that case the tube holder and the needle system and the safety system might have to be included. What do you guys say to that ? --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General venepuncture vs discussion of brand 

message: The article currently says that
:the vacuum in the tube pulls blood through the needle and into the tube.
However, vacuums don't "pull" anything; it's higher pressure that pushes. (As when you're drinking through a straw: it's not the low pressure in your mouth that "sucks" up the liquid; it's the air pressure on the surface of the liquid in the glass that pushes the liquid up the straw to the area of lower pressure. Hence why you can't drink through a straw longer than 10 m since air pressure is not high enough to push water higher than 10 m.)
So there has to be some source of pressure at the other end that pushes the blood through the needle into the tube. Is that mechanical pressure? Blood pressure? Air pressure?
At any rate, the article should be corrected to remove the claim that the vacuum draws the blood through the needle. -- pne (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacuums (don't) suck