Talk:Atrioventricular block

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Medicine: Cardiology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Atrioventricular block.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KateF87. Peer reviewers: Vumedgr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mfigueroa12, Vgallina. Peer reviewers: Lkazmierczak1, Tombuckley23, Tchristensen28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of Draft

The information that is in the article now is very good and helpful to understanding the topic, but there most definitely should be more information added to the article to give readers a more comprehensive idea of the topic. Additionally, I feel like the article would be made better if there was an addition of different sections. Maybe it could be broken up into topics like causes, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, or things of that nature as a way to break up the article into clear sections that provide great information about certain things about the topic that readers are looking for. The article could also benefit from the addition of more sources to give it a broader scope of knowledge from different places. The images also should have references so as to show where they are from and be sure not to plagiarize in any way. These ideas may be able to help you guys out with making this article better I hope it is helpful!Tombuckley23 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that while this article is generally informative, it needs to be broken into different sections for clearer reading. The lead section could be developed more, while the second paragraph should be moved to a separate subsection under "Causes". Also the sentence "The cholinergic receptor types affected are the muscarinic receptors" might go under a separate subsection such as "pathphysiology" that can be further developed. There also needs to be a separate section for the types of atrioventricular block and diagnostic criteria given here. Lkazmierczak1 (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMed VUSM 2019 Peer Review

GENERAL

• Whose work are you reviewing? KateF87 • Link to draft you're reviewing: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Atrioventricular_block

LEAD

The lead is very readable (G11) for a non medical audience. I think the first sentence properly explains the concept of AV block in a easy-to-understand way. I think it could help to mention the types of blocks in the lead to briefly introduce them before the main sections. You could just add that 'different mechanisms of AV block can lead to Type I, Type II, etc. blocks.' Otherwise looks good.

CONTENT

Anatomy

"This delay accounts for the ECG period between the P wave and the QRS complex, and creates the PR interval." could be rephrased. "The depolarization creates the T wave in the ECG tracing": I think the T wave as actually repol and the QRS is the ventricular depol.

Classification

"third-degree being the most severe": I'm wondering whether they differ in terms of severity of symptoms, risk for mortality, etc. "when there is a delay between the electrical signal moves": just a typo I like how you link to the 1st deg AV block article here

"signal between the atria and ventricles is even more impaired": while I know this is meant for a general audience, I wonder if it's not a bad idea to talk about the AVRT and AVNRT mechanisms here to explain the differences in more detail The Mobitz 1 & 2 sections are really well-written! "The risks and possible effects of Mobitz II are much more severe than Mobitz I in that it can lead to severe heart attack.": how does AV block cause heart attacks? "no more communication between the two. None of the signals from the upper chambers are making it to the lower chambers.": could probably cut out the second sentence

Diagnosis

" electrolyte, drug level and cardiac enzyme level tests.": which ones? maybe link to the appropriate pages? " A clinical evaluation also looks at infection, myxedema, or connective tissue disease studies.": why? is there an association? "Based on the P waves and QRS complexes that can be evaluated from these readings, that relationship will be the standardized test if an AV block is present or not.": phrasing "Other examinations for the detection of an AV block include electrophysiologic testing, echocardiography, and exercise.": maybe link to pages for echo, stress test, etc.?

Management

"anticholinergic agents": consider including the terms atropine or glycopyrolate "isoproterenol": not an anticholinergic "His-Purkinje system is the result": I feel like there might be a missing word here

TONE AND BALANCE

I think this article's tone is really good and clearly doesn't sway towards advancing unproven hypotheses or medication management plans. Nice!

SOURCES

I think many of the sections have a couple of sources at the end of the paragraph. I've never understood citing protocols so asking for myself here, but do we cite at the end of each sentence or each paragraph if we use a block of info from one source? The refs section at the bottom looks great!

ORGANIZATION

I included a lot of this in the content section. I think this is written well for a general audience member who wants to learn more about AV block. While I included more specific comments above, I think it's helpful to use more links to other topics so that those who do want to read more can do that. For example, instead of 'cardiac enzyme level tests,' consider 'cardiac enzyme (e.g. troponin, CKMB) level tests.' Section level organization is great.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

Love them. I like how you found the moving GIFs too. Those are super helpful. Pretty sure they're copyright-free since I've seen them elsewhere on this site.

OVERALL

I really like this article. I think it's an important topic to communicate well and presents the opportunity to explain some topics while linking to others for those who want to learn more. Great work!! Vumedgr (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]