Talk:Heyde's syndrome

message: I chose to re-write this article to improve readability, detail of information,
breadth of coverage, and the use of supporting citations.
I am not a specialist in this area, but I am a biomedical researcher and I chose
to make these changes to the Wikipedia entry as part of a literature review of
my own. Specific potentially controversial changes and additions are listed
below.
As I am not a specialist in this area, it is quite possible that I made some
mistakes in my edits to this page, although I worked very hard to avoid that. If
you discover a mistake, or more likely a statement that you disagree with,
please feel free to make a change, but also clearly document your reasoning in
this talk section. I will be monitoring this page and making edits in the weeks
and months to come, and I will carefully review and alter all changes if I feel
they are unsupported by the literature, unless you provide a clear and
compelling reason in this talk section.
Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 21:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision to article in June, 2015 

message: I could not find any prognostic data on Heyde's syndrome in specific, only data
on IA and AS, so I left this section out.
Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 21:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prognosis 

message: This article refers to von Willebrand's and angiodysplasia interchangably despite the fact that these are totally different diseases.
Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 21:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of von Willebrand's disease and angiodysplasia 

message: Currently, wikipedia is coming across as suggesting that the 2003 paper suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly clarified the underlying pathophysiology. In fact, several lines of evidence started to be developed in the late 1970's, and gradually came together, such that the hypothesis was clearly presented in the early 1990's, and received substantial corroboration from many sources over the next decade. In fact, the 2003 article credits much of that work. The elucidation of this syndrome "took a village." I'll see if I can find a nice secondary source review of how this developed, but readers are cautioned that the chronology was a little less simple than might be inferred from the current wording. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: User:Ozzie10aaaa: You put many requests for 'medical references' without any clarification or edit summary. Please provide your rationale for me. With one exception that I intend to remove shortly, everything in this article is substantiated by medical review, and primary sources are provided for clarification of individual points. Many sources are quite old, but this is not an actively researched syndrome, and so they are still absolutely current. In cases where they are not current, they support single statements that describe the work done by that article, and not the pathophysiology or diagnosis. Again with one exception, I do not understand any of your requests. Can you please enlighten me?  Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 08:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Dacre ...no problem.......irrespective of primary or secondary, the sources are dated (references #1,4,5,6,7,9,14,15 (have place inline citations...the History section is exempt)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ozzie10aaaa; I am editing the article right now and I will try to clean up the older references; I think I am too attached to my non-Wikipedia style of citing primary literature. I have found a few newer reviews that I am going to use to edit the text right now. Do you think I should just delete older references entirely, or simply add the newer reviews to the list? Also, if I am using reviews only, as seems to be Wikipedia policy, should I be citing less often? When I made wrote most of this content I cited often and mixed newer reviews supporting entire paragraphs with older literature supporting single sentences in those paragraphs. Should I just cite less and only have the reviews supporting larger chunks of text? Thanks again for all of your help :-) Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: no problem,,,,the first ref we decided to leave in....im looking for the rest (before deleting make sure you have a replacement reference) usually I go 1-2 sentences per references, everyone is different,.....remember you can use GOOGLE books and position statement (FDA,NHS,NIH,WHO,HHS,) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PS....Michael Dacre...     ...see if these help,,i will keep looking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ozzie10aaaa, I think that I have addressed all of the major citation issues now. When you have time, if you can make sure it all looks ok, that would be fantastic. Thanks again for all of your help Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are 'medical references needed'