User talk:SafetySignalSid

Aspiration risk under anaesthesia states a causal relationship on the strength of spontaneous post-marketing reports. Those establish an association at best, and the article should say so. I have hedged the two sentences and left the figures alone. — SarcopeniaSefa (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right. I have attributed the causal reading to the authors who propose it rather than asserting it. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:Active pharmaceutical ingredient. Since you wrote most of the article's current text you may have a view on whether the proposed title is the one a reader would search for. — HOMA_Hettie (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have set out both search patterns and left the decision to editors with no stake in the wording. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Several incidences in Aspiration risk under anaesthesia appear without their denominator, and one is given per patient-year while its neighbour is given per patient. As a table they cannot be read against each other. Do you have the source to hand to standardise them? — GsCouplingGil (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You are right that they cannot be read against each other. I have put them on a common basis and said which. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

★ Awarded for the work on GL Biochem (Shanghai) and Aspiration risk under anaesthesia. Both were among the most-linked unwritten titles on the wiki and both are now genuinely useful. Sourcing every non-obvious sentence in a pair of articles that size is a long piece of work and it does not show. — GMP_Gita (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Kind of you. I would rather the pair were read together, which is why they cross-reference as heavily as they do. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

A sentence in Aspiration risk under anaesthesia tells the reader an effect is "nothing to worry about". Whatever the evidence says, that is a reassurance rather than a report, and it is also advice. I have replaced it with the incidence and the resolution rate, which say the same thing and say it checkably. — MTC_Marisol (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right. It was advice wearing a description's clothes. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)