Talk:Breast prostheses

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2020, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.Huda, Future PharmD, Mhabtezion, CAngerman, Catherinerbarton. Peer reviewers: B. Hyland 17.

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

Foundations II 2020 Group 1 proposed edits
Our group has been assigned to make edits to this page as part of a school project. We will post proposed edits below.Catherinerbarton (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Would like to rearrange topic headings and place current headings as subtopics (i.e. have a main category for USES, with paragraphs dedicated to mastectomies, lumpectomy and use in the transgender community, as well as a separate category for TYPES under which "shapes" may be described).Catherinerbarton (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Evaluate introductory paragraph to make more concise, well cited
 * evaluate history portion in introduction - bolster information and consider making separate sectionCatherinerbarton (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Create topic headers and re-arrange some information to better suit each topic CAngerman (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Add information to mastectomy portion S.Huda, Future PharmD (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

After a lumpectomy or a quadrantectomy the breast tissue may be left with slight irregularities. Breast prosthesis can help to act as an equalizer to maintain the shape of the breast. Examples of breast prostheses after small but not total breast tissue removal include partial breast prosthesis, and attachable breast prosthesis (also known as a contact prosthesis).

Partial breast prosthesis are available in a variety of materials such as silicone, foam, or fiber. These inserts are able to discretely fit into a regular bra or into the insert of a mastectomy bra.

Attachable breast prostheses anchor directly onto your body and are secured using adhesive or Velcro. Attachable prostheses can be custom made as a partial breast shape, as well as coming readily available in full sizes. These prosthesis, unlike the partial prosthesis, move independent of a bra and can be worn along with a regular bra. For those who do not want a bra specially designed for prostheses, an attachable option may be a consideration.CAngerman (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Mastectomy Breast prostheses are most commonly used after a mastectomy, usually a consequence of cancer. They are often molded to mimic the natural shape of a woman's breast and can either be used temporarily or for long-term use as an alternative to, or prior to surgical breast reconstruction. Depending on the type of mastectomy performed, progress of post-operative healing, and other various factors, surgeons will determine the time when a patient can start to use a prosthesis. A prescription may be required for breast prostheses and mastectomy bras for insurance purposes.[1]

Post-Mastectomy Bras Post-mastectomy bras are similar to regular bras with the exception of containing spandex stretch pockets on the inside that help keep the breast prosthesis in place. Post-mastectomy bras can be found at specialty shops or mastectomy boutiques and some shops are also willing to stitch pockets into regular bras, swimsuits, etc. to hold prostheses.[1]

Attachable Breast Prostheses Attachable breast prostheses can be used as an alternative to post-mastectomy bras. Attachable breast prostheses can be attached directly to the skin via adhesives and can also be worn with a regular bra.[1] S.Huda, Future PharmD (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 2 Peer Review Comments
I. Ly, UCSF (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The main issue displayed for this article is that it needs citations from reliable sources. After reviewing the article, it seems that the group contributed a large amount of content with proper citations. The more important sections are extensively written but balanced in terms of content found in the subsections. Also, the language used is neutral and not too technical. Group 1’s proposed edits include rearranging topic headings, evaluating the introductory paragraph, creating topic headers, and adding further information. The group addressed all the proposed edits by revising the intro paragraph, editing/creating new headings, specifying the different types and uses of breast prostheses, and ensuring proper citation of information retrieved from a variety of sources.
 * In terms of overall formatting, the article has concise heading/subheading titles. In the paragraphs, however, the citations are not consistent. For some citations, there appears to be an extra space after the period, while others do not have the extra space. With guidance from the Wikipedia style article for medicine-related articles, the ‘Uses’ section could be restructured as ‘Surgeries and procedures’ and then each separate surgery could be listed below. The current content seems fine for describing the uses, but can also include risks or complications, technique, etc., if relevant. There was also a sentence in the article that used the word ‘patient’, which would be better if it was reworded so it is written for a ‘general audience’. Lastly, the history section should be moved to the end of the article where it tends to appear according to the style guide.

Richard.Ishimaru (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The group worked on a start-class quality article and made a substantial amount of edits and additions. Among their edits were changes to the article structure and reformatting of headers. The edited article flows well but when considering the medicine-related style guideline, there are some adjustments that could be beneficial. When considering prostheses, the "device" section of the guideline would be a good place to refer to. In that section, the recommended order of presenting information is in "uses", then "manufacturing", then "history". The order in which the group edited the article still flows, but if considering the point of view of a non-medical person visiting the page, the guideline structure makes sense for those seeking relevant information for today.
 * Overall I believe the group has achieved their goals. The group proposed four changes in their initial proposal; one was to rearrange topics and headings (with a dedicated section to USES and a subdivision of TYPES), a second was to refine the introductory paragraphs to include touching on history, a third was to alter/update headings to better suit each topic, and the fourth was to add information to the mastectomy portion of the article. These four proposals were acted upon and I believe the group has achieved their overall goal for improving the article. The article may not be organized (by topic) in the way of the guideline, but each of their proposed adjustments were made and I feel it adds to the quality of the article.
 * Through some searching, I found a section of the introduction that was very similar in wording to cited source (first entry for source #2). I do not believe this was intentional and is most likely due to limits of rewording options. Beyond that, there does not appear to be any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. However, I am still in the process of reviewing and will update with findings (if any) that I happen across.

Sydney Martinelli (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The group's edits substantially improved the article. The group added many important sections, specifically listing types of surgeries where a breast prostheses can be offered, as well as explaining the surgery, adding information about the style of prostheses offered, and including insurance as a possible consideration when purchasing a breast prostheses. When formatting the headers in the overall article, the group can consider using headers mimicking the headers that the "Guiding framework" provides, such as including side effects of the prostheses, manufacturing, and including a header explaining history of prostheses toward the end of the article, instead of including history in the introductory paragraph. In addition, I believe that the group can include more sub-headers under each surgery guided from Wikipedia's "Guiding framework," including headers such as "medical uses" of each surgery or "risk/complications" of using the prostheses after each of the surgeries.
 * Overall, I believe the group achieved their goals for improvement, as they have rearranged their headings, evaluated their introductory paragraph, added more information to each heading and sub-heading, as well as re-arranged overall topics to provide the article better organization. I believe that each of these changes led to an overall improvement in the article and its quality.
 * All of the sources included were freely available to the public. However, I'm unsure if some of the sources are reputable secondary sources. For example, consider replacing articles such as the blog post on the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute site, or the post written by the Seattle Cancer Care Institute, with other articles such as Pubmed secondary sources. In addition, the sub-heading "Transgender" is missing proper citations explaining breast enhancement in this population. Including citations here can add to the quality of the page and specifically this section, along with making the page more reputable.

B. Hyland 17 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The groups edits do substantially improve the article. Many missing sections were added such as uses, insurance considerations, history, and types. These sections were well-written and provided a good overview of the the topics covered. I thought that the relative size of sections was appropriate. The introduction could be improved by summarizing some of the uses/types for prostheses and focusing less on where prostheses can be bought. I also thought that adding a section/sentence to distinguish or explain the alternative options to breast prostheses could be useful for the average Wikipedia user (+ linking to these alternative options on Wikipedia). Some of the language was a little bit difficult to understand for a person with little information on the topic so consider using more lay language.
 * The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improvement. At the outset, they sought to re-order some of the sections and add content. Furthermore, they specifically improved the history and mastectomy sessions. They sought to improve the introduction, which they definitely did, but some further improvement could be warranted. The group added a lot of citations which will allow this article to more accurately represent the topic.
 * The article largely reflects a neutral point of view. Most language did not imply any positive or negative connotation towards breast prostheses or any aspects of breast prostheses. Furthermore, it didn't persuade the other one way or another whether a breast prostheses or alternative was best for them. One area of improvement could lie in the transgender section under uses. Renaming the section could be done to make it more accurate as transgender isn't really a use. Maybe the editors could consider "Use in the transgender community" as an option. Looking into secondary reviews on the use of breast prostheses in this community and/or the attitudes of this community might help improve this section's verbiage and language ensure that the community and their use of these products are being described in appropriate terms. Another area that could be worth reviewing is the psychosocial section to make sure that there isn't any language that persuades. For example, instead of saying "may be a good post-surgical option as an alternative to breast reconstruction" just say is an alternative option to breast reconstruction.

What citations are "ready" for Wikipedia
I just removed the most recent edit from a student who is helping to improve this article. Please review the Guideline for Reliable Sources before working on this article. All PubMed articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS gives lots of great suggestions for what can be shared on Wikipedia. Thanks for helping to improve this! JenOttawa (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Catherinerbarton as per the Wikipedia way of improving articles, please discuss the source here before re-adding it or reverting my edit. I reviewed a second time and it definitely does not meet WP:MEDRS. Thanks again for all your efforts to improve the article. JenOttawa (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi thank you for looking at this. We are new students, and didn't realize someone had removed the citation purposefully, I thought I had not entered it correctly and did not think to look at the talk page. For this topic, we have found it difficult to find pubmed articles on breast prostheses that would fit the guidelines and are open access. Is it not possible to cite a pubmed article for information in its background section if it is not a review, meta-analysis etc.? Unfortunately the two sources listed in the background info section of this particular article are also appear to either not be open access or not a review type article, so citing those sources would put us in the same boat. If not, would the next best course of action simply be to delete the sentences from the article or leave it with the "medical citation" needed? We have also been instructed that topics where review type articles and access are sparse, it is sometimes okay to still cite these sources if you are clear about its limitations in the text. Thanks for your input! Catherinerbarton (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear thank you for touching base and for replying on the talk page. No problem about your mistake of immediately re-adding the removed material. You guys are doing a great job and it is a lot of take in at the start, especially when transitioning from an academic style of writing to Wikipedia. I am not familiar enough with the field to comment if your primary citation should be used in the context that you suggest. I suggest that you share your source on this talk page, along with your argument/opinion for using this primary source. In this case I feel that it is important to give the community a chance to weigh in (leave it on the talk page for a week and/or flag on the WP:MED talk page, and then someone with more experience in this field and knowledge about the availability of WP:MEDRS sources can help. Sorry I was so late in responding! JenOttawa (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)