Talk:Golden hour (medicine)

message: The golden hour is not a universally accepted medical concept, perhaps we should have a section where its pros and cons are discussed? I'm not fully au-fait with the literature as it currently stands, but maybe someone who is should have a look? --John24601 20:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the Golden Hour 

message: The two citations at the end of the article, is there some linkage we can provide? Merely referencing the studies in question, without giving the reader the opportunity to go to them and draw their own conclusions is akin to giving a hungry man a picture of food.
I, for one, am not married to the Golden Hour as a standard, and would welcome some rigorous investigation of the appropriateness of the load-and-go or stay-and-play methodologies for pre-hospital care, esp. of trauma patients. I am going to add a note to the effect that the "Golden Hour" concept is well-documented in cases of thrombosis-induced CVA, though it is three hours, not one, unless someone can convince me otherwise.
:References don't have to be to online sources, but they have to exist. Dan100 (Talk) 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two cites 

message: As written right now, the article is focused largely on saying that the "golden hour" is wrong. Certainly, it has come into question recently, but we can't just blanketly say that it is wrong. This is a violation of NPOV. This article will have to be cleaned up so that both supporters and skeptics of the "golden hour" concept can read it and think that the concept is treated fairly. --Hnsampat 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, this is the era of evidence based medicine and many medical dogmas or myths have been debunked in the medical literature. If there's no high quality evidence to support the existance of the so-called golden hour, the absence of any such evidence in the article can hardly be said to be a POV problem. MoodyGroove 17:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree there were some minor POV problems. For example, the lede was rephrased to say the golden hour "was" considered the first 60 minutes of a trauma emergency (it still is). It's also widely believed that the golden hour is valid (it just has no high quality evidence). It's also fair to point out that Dr. Bledsoe is an outspoken critic of the golden hour and other EMS "myths" (and he is). But the fact is that we are in a new era of modern medicine,. As such, the Wikipedia should side with the prevailing evidence. That's not making the mind up for the reader, unless you believe we should present both sides of blood letting, for example, and let the reader decide. Scientific articles are different from political articles, in my opinion. At any rate, I think I've corrected the minor POV issues that were present. MoodyGroove 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I almost hate to nitpick, since we're mostly in agreement, but in a scientific controversy, the evidence decides which side of a controversy is more valid. Whether or not there is acceptance of evidence is another matter altogether. It takes years for medicine to "universally reject" paradigms, therapies, or modalities that are disproven or discredited in the peer reviewed literature. It's a battle to get clinicians to follow evidence based guidelines and critical pathways for patients experiencing myocardial infarction, for example. The force of dogma and tradition in medicine should not be underestimated. So yes, the 'golden hour' is still taught, and still "widely accepted" (and the article says that again). However, if you're willing to admit that the Wikipedia should "report the facts" then pointing out that the golden hour is not evidence based is not POV, it's just calling a spade a spade. Regards, MoodyGroove 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues 

message: If you wish to salvage this content, please move to a more appropriate article. MoodyGroove 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article

message: A term brought up in my current EMT course is the "platinum ten minutes", which is related to the golden hour. (google hits) The term refers to not staying more than 10 minutes on scene (when possible) and not "bandaging someone to death". There aren't many hits, so it may not be notable enough, but just a suggestion. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk •  contribs) 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Platinum ten minutes" 

message: If no one objects, I'm going to remove this section. The article is about a controversial saying in regards to treating trauma patients. Strokes and heart attacks are not trauma, and as such, don't belong in the article. Comments? JPINFV (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strokes DO have a time limit for thrombolytic drugs to work effectively... if there isn't a better place to reference the time-criticality of that sort of treatment, why not leave it in the article, even if designate it as not really a 'golden hour' issue in the sense it was originally conceived? Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing whether there is a time limit (which is longer than an hour anyways for strokes). The problem is that the golden hour is taught about trauma, not medical conditions. A better place to note treatment time constraints for conditions such as a stroke would be the main stroke/CVA article, not being pigeon holed into an article as 'evidence' when it doesn't pertain to the point of the article (trauma care). JPINFV (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See if what I just did to that section made it a little more tolerable. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Medical conditions with time-critical treatment considerations" section?  

message: *I've removed the following self-sourced text, which was added by someone knowledgeable in the field, but requires published references and a neutral tone to be considered here. As it stands it looks a bit like original research. JNW (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Golden hour (medicine). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224082924/http://www.umm.edu/shocktrauma/history.html to http://www.umm.edu/shocktrauma/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified