 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
This article entirely fails to differentiate between hypopnea in sleep disorders and and hypopnea due to other causes. Some of the information is also repeated. I think a reorganization, rewrite, and/or possibly a split, with the sleep disorder centric stuff going perhaps to hypopnea syndrome, as the sleep disorder article terms it in relation to sleep specifically.
24.166.2.5 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be quite clean and As a whole this article is better than if it were to be separated, as that would take away the focus on the overall issue of sleep hypopnea. Having all the issues of hypopnea in one article, with the different causes in different parts of the page would be the best idea. It needs to be kept on one page. 209.112.144.170 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Causes of "hypopnea in sleep disorders" and "hypopnea due..." are almost the same, so there is no need to have them in different parts, to say nothing of different articles. Add some more and mark them if you are smart enough. When I first came here there was nothing but a definition of two lines taken from some medical dictionary. I wrote the article for the sake of general overview of the subject what any encyclopedia is about. Still I give OK to do with the article whatever you like, but mind two things that follow in succession: 1) splitting will definitely require more depth and elaboration; only this is not an easy task; 2) it may make it too scientific and almost incomprehensible for an avarage visitor; still not on option for a popular encyclopedia. So if you have valor to perfect the article in accordance with the-golden-middle criterion you are more than welcome.
Having read this for the first time, and deciding to add my 2c worth, I feel that the general introduction to hypopnea is more valuable. If more depth is required into either of the two separate "causes", then I would suggest additional threads rather than a split entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.234.70 (talk) 15:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
A patient's breathing has to reduce by 30%, not 50 and the O2 desaturation has to be at least 3% (4% by some standards) before it counts - and it doesn't matter if it's 10 seconds long or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.59.199.163 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As stated by the AASM. Hypopnea is a partial obstruction of the upper airway. A 30% drop in the nasal pressure signal followed by a 4% oxygen desaturation. A 50% drop is required for a 3% drop in blood oxygen. Lasting at least ten seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.243.34 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled "Hypopnœa", but all instances of the word in the article are spelled "Hypopnea" instead. I suggest moving to the title Hypopnea. Moving to HypopneaorHypopnoea would also greatly enhance the readability of the URL. ("Hypopnœa" comes out as "Hypopn%C5%93a" after urlencode!) Your ideas? --NetRolller 3D 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please don't divide the discussion into Support/Oppose groups!
Should we merge the shallow breathing article into this one? This one's much more well written, I think, and there's no references on the other one.--Cpt ricard (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the exact difference between Hypopnea and Bradypnea? and can we say that every Hypopnea has to be a Bradypnea? and Bradypnea could and could be not a hypopnea? Oussamah Bou-Matar (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
