Talk:Cervical effacement

Wasn't sure what to do with this page. Added it to WikiProject Medicine. Effacement has a broader meaning that just describing cervical changes in parturition. f.y.i. this is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.165.155 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with above. The term is also used in description of podocyte foot processes pathology in Minimal Change Disease (MCD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.36.3 (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation
needed. Its also a sociological concept. 71.175.70.108 (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Whtchris (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group C Proposed Edits
There is a template on the Wikipedia Medicine-related article that the group will work off of. [|Link Link to Surgeries and procedures template] Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Potentially change article title from Cervical Effacement to address issue of ambiguity (ex: Cervical Effacement (Labor / Childbirth). Sanamchalan (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Group Peer Review
Part 1: All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group's edits substantially improved the article by providing various additional sources of information regarding assessment, risks and complications, as well as different method of how cervical effacement is done. They were respectful to not plagiarize their sources according to the few that I read through and their passages.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

I think that this group went above and beyond the overall goals for improvement. Had I not known this page was done by a student project I would have just assumed this was done by a Wikipedia expert. The content was very well organized in an understandable way, and the language that was used was easy to understand. One thing I wished I saw more of was in the risks and complications section. I liked how in the infection section, a percentage was given to show how prevalent this risk actually is. I would have loved to see more of that in the other risk sections.

• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)

Yes, at no point in their article did I feel that they were pushing me for cervical effacement, nor were they pushing against it. I saw there were some points that showed how people were using this technique both inpatient and at home to reduce the pain of delivery, but that was more like fact rather than persuasion. Pharmer1934 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input on the risks/complications section! This section is specifically for risks and complications associated with cervical effacement. So, while there are definitely many more risk and complications associated with labor and induction of labor, I decided to focus on risks/complications that have research data directly associating cervical effacement to those negative outcomes. Shuyi.lee (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 1 Peer Review: Part 2 Peer Review:
 * Looking at the lead section, it is easy to quickly understand what cervical ripening is and its importance in pregnancy. Viewing the rest of the article, the lead correctly reflects the most important information needed for the reader to understand. The last paragraph in the lead seems out of place, as it discusses a specific pharmacologic intervention.
 * The pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and mechanical sections are a bit difficult to follow in terms of presentation. Consider doing [drug]:[information] to condense or using subheadings rather than bulletpoints. Point of confusion: methods section itself has a citation?
 * Article does not try to convince read of a certain view point. Article uses neutral phrases and does not include terms like "best, worst, most people, some people say, etc." There are duplicate citations of articles in the references, such as a duplicate citation of Mozurkewich et al. for 17 and 20.
 * Most statements in the article are connected to reliable sources such as journal articles. There is an abundance of sources to support their statements and do not lean too heavily on certain sources.
 * Overall, the group has achieved its goals for wiki page improvement.
 * The article cites a lot of systemic reviews that serve as their secondary sources. These sources are also freely available. For instance, the National Library of Medicine, Wiley Online Library, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth are cited, which is accessible and open access to the general public. The European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology is cited, which is not open access. PiggyTofu (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the duplicate references! That has been fixed. Shuyi.lee (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback on the lead section. We ended up moving the last part that talked about a systemic review study with the use of dinoprostone in inpatient setting vs outpatient setting to the section Risks and Complications! Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback on our article. It really helped having an outside look on our work and catching small mistakes. We also cleaned up the organization a bit. Sanamchalan (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 1: Do the group's edits substantially improve the the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

It is my opinion that the group's edits did substantially improve the article. The resources used alone show the amount the research and understanding of the topic the group did prior to editing this article. The article does a good job at giving a holistic view on the topic of cervical effacement. This is seen when you go into sections like Risks/complications and Methods because the group did not just list things here but went into detail about each of the risks and methods which gives the reader a better understanding.

Has the group achieved its overall goal for improvement?

Before reading this article I had little to no knowledge about cervical effacement and after reading it I have gained a deeper understanding about what it is and why it is important. I think that any article that can do that is a well edited article and so I am of the belief that the group did achieve their goal for improvement. Their Assessment and measurement section did a great job breaking down the bishop score and it actually gave me some ideas on how our group could edit out own scoring section for our article.

Part 2: Do the edits reflect language that support diversity, equity and inclusion?

I think the article does a good job at not containing bias however I do think some improvements can be made to make the article more inclusive. There are a few parts in the article that mentions women and it does not mention any trans or non-binary individuals. I think by doing so the article is excluding trans and non-binary individuals who also have a cervix and this article can apply to. My recommendation would be is to just change the language a little to make it more inclusive to individuals who don't identify as female. Mktthind13 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight! All gendered words have been changed to gender neutral words. Shuyi.lee (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the feedback on the article, especially the Bishop score section. We took into consideration having more inclusive language, thank you for that suggestion. Sanamchalan (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review Part 1: After reviewing the edits made by the group and comparing them with the specific improvement criteria outlined in the framework, the group's edits substantially improved the article according to the "Guiding framework." It is now a more informative and cohesive article that provides a lot of clarity on the topic.

The mentioned proposed edits have been done and have significantly improved the article. There weren't specific goals mentioned but ultimately the goal for all of the articles was to improve upon them. The article was thorough, well-cited, and easy to follow.

Part 2: Overall the edits are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The sections were well organized, especially with the various different methods they included. It was well-cited and the use of hyperlinks was beneficial. The images and the diagram also provided great visual aids to help the reader follow and understand what they were reading. I also found the vocabulary to be appropriate for the general audience. Chelseysouza (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback! We went through the article once more after the review to further simplify any words that may be confusing or hard to follow Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Methods
Pharmacology

I am planning to add more direct information on the use not only for inducing labor but also for the insertion of hormonal intrauterine devices (IUD).Cheyleann (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)