Talk:Simple triage and rapid treatment

message: I have not been able to find an academic reference for START. Only recent papers compare it with other triage systems. Does anyone know a good ref. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic reference 

message: I removed the following from the section on pediatric START:
:However the only Evidence based method for the triage of children is the Smart Tape. As the Smart Tape gives the rescuer a tool to do the job it allows them to be much more objective, vital when dealing with sick and injured children. The pocket sized tape is tough enough to cope with the worst environments. Smart tape leaflet, pediatric triage tape - incident management products
This reads completely like an advertisement, and the link to which it referred (http://www.tsgassociates.co.uk/English/Civilian/products/smart_tape.htm) is not an article showing this tool is "evidence-based" but rather to the company's website.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: The addition of the "START Limitations" section with numerous citations to works authored by Sacco et al. presents a serious point of view problem and reads like a criticism section (See: WP:CSECTION and WP:UNDUE).  While the editor presents arguments that are supported by published sources in the medical literature, the section spends way too much space discussing what triage "should" or "should not" be; I have removed these sections as they neither describe START nor describe a criticism of START. As it is, the addition of this criticism section without additional cleanup and citations of the main part of the article presents a biased point of view: nearly all medical citations presented are in the criticisms section and nearly all of these are by Sacco et al., which could erroneously suggest that there is a consensus in the medical community around Sacco et al., that START is not valid as a triage mechanism. 
I think there is a place for the limitations of START to be discussed in this article, but the current limitations section is too long, covers too many tangential subjects, and deviates from NPOV by relying too much on one set of studies. I am going to work a bit on improving the main article by adding academic citations, and I would like to solicit feedback on how to incorporate the limitations. If I do not receive any feedback on this talk page, I will continue to cut back on the limitations section.
Wetrat (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbalance in discussion of limitations 

message: After getting only one feedback, I went ahead and rewrote the article using reliable secondary sources.  Most of the rewrite involved bringing down to size what didn't actually relate to START or was only tangentially related to START. I have included brief mentions of related methods and brief limitations, but 80% of what was in the article before probably belongs in triage.
As it is the article is fairly short and descriptive. Before adding to it, 
*please ask yourself whether what you are planning to add belongs in this page (i.e., is actually part of an encyclopedic article on what is START triage); see WP:coatrack.
*please use secondary sources; see WP:MEDREV.
Wetrat (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite on 4/21/2013