Talk:Chignon (medical term)

FOUNDATIONS II GROUP A CITATION REVIEW
Kksop reviewed references 1-8. All sources now hyperlinked correctly. Kksop (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Jtvko reviewed references 9-16. Removed the month from 4 citations. Jtvko (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lamboozled reviewed references 17-24. All sources are non-predatory and hyperlinked correctly. Lamboozled (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Melisalanzar reviewed references 25-31. All sources are hyperlinked correctly. Melisalanzar (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References 3 and 14 were duplicates and references 4 and 15 were duplicates. References 6 and 23 were also duplicates. We consolidated all of the callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 3, 4, and 6. Jtvko (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Jtvko (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Resolution of chignon
"It is not a sign of serious injury and may take as little as two hours or as long as two weeks to disappear."

I removed this sentence because there was no source cited. I added in a resolution time of 12-18 hours based on a few sources found. Jtvko (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

FOUNDATIONS II GROUP A PROPOSED EDITS
More information about what it is (subcategory of caput saccedaneum) Jtvko (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What it looks like Jtvko (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

More information about how it arises (vacuum birth, what is involved) Jtvko (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Short or long-term consequences (if it resolves on its own, when it doesn't, etc.) Jtvko (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Guideline recommendations for resolving chignon in different countries Kksop

Potential long-term damage
"Is it possible that the long term effects of this cephal haematoma could be damage to hair follicles and, therefore, baldness over the area? Excessive vacuum activity may well??? damage hair follicles."

I removed the above two lines from the article because it is speculative and unencyclopaedic in its current form, but the contributor raises a valid question. Is there any evidence for such damage from ventouse suction? Karenjc (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Uneducated opinion: That claim sounds ridiculous, but I'd love to see vacuum cleaners advertised for hair removal. 121.210.170.141 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"in the mid-1980's on the east coast"
East coast of where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.218.111 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cesarean Section Rate
In:


 * Of note his cesarean section rate is now 100% in the year 2009.

I assume this means he's not doing the procedure anymore? Could mean a few other things, I think... has he finally mastered cesareans so well that mothers and babies aren't dying from the procedure anymore?

And, I'm not sure, but I think there should also be a comma after "Of note".

121.210.170.141 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Peers Review by Group C
WIP Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]
 * Overall, the article was able to provide medically relevant information regarding chignon and cite up-to-date sources that explains it further via secondary sources. This article could use some restructuring overall, as explained from prompt #2, and then further expand on what chignon is, how it is detected, what are its prevalence. Perhaps, the article can also talk about other alternatives to vacuum-assisted delivery, in addition to “forceps”. Are there any methods in the making that have yet to be put into practice? But, overall, definitely an improvement from the old article!
 * Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]
 * Not quite. The language in this article includes too many jargons with the medical terms and the Chignon vs ______ sections detract the attention and focus from chignon, and is now more on clarifying the differences between what a chignon is versus other common complications involving head injuries from birth. One suggestion is to perhaps include an “Other Complications Related to Birth Traumas to the Head”. There, they may briefly talk about caput succedaneum, subgaleal hemorrhage, and cephalohematoma. Then, instead of talking and expanding too much on these topics, they can link the articles that do talk about these conditions so that the readers, if they choose to, can just read up on it.
 * Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]
 * Yes, the overall article maintains a neutral point of view, and its materials are explained and further elaborated from an informational point of view. This article did not serve to have conflict of interests, and was not written in a way that tried to promote personal beliefs or persuading its readers of any ideas.

Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The article concisely provides information on chignon and includes other relevant medical terms. However, the subheaders / organization of the article distracts from the main topic of chignon and focuses on the other relevant topics more. The chignon vs __ sections can be combined in a table or pros / cons format and more sections can be added such as risks, complications, treatment, etc. Maybe look into Wikipedia’s template for medical terms. I found the images very helpful in visualizing the process and result of vacuum-assisted delivery.

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group has achieved their goals of providing more information on what it is specifically as a subcategory of caput succedaneum, what it looks like and how it arises. But, I feel more information can be included about the last two goals of short/long term consequences and how this is treated in the US and in other countries.

3b) Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Most of the sources were relevant, verifiable and easily accessible. The sources that are not accessible were 5, 7, 9, and 13. Not sure on the relevance of source 11. 15 is a repeat source from 4. Many of the sources were from hospitals and institutions from other countries. While this is relevant, maybe add some from the US and other countries as well for a balance. Sanamchalan (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, in terms of information added, relevant information has been added as improvement with up-to-date guidelines implemented. The title is short and simple. However, more relevant information could have been added that focuses on the condition itself instead of comparisons, which may take away the focus. The article does contain some medical jargon(mentioned in #3biii), which may make it challenging to understand for non-experts.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, in terms of comparing what they started with, the group has added relevant information as improvement. However, the group could have added more to the article by going into detail regarding the condition following the wikipedia template.

3c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes, in terms of having a header, sections, titles, etc.

Improvements: Links: add - [alopecia], / delete - second link for [vacuum extraction], lesion Gender-neutral language: maybe remove “he or she” in the first sentence? “…after vacuum extraction delivery”

Medical jargon - edema, serosanguinous fluid, subgaleal space ElizabethChung (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Elizabeth Chung

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

In the sense that the group’s edit has more information compared to the article’s latest version in 2021, yes. However, the article does not follow Wikipedia’s template for medical conditions. “Chignon” is a medical term but it describes a specific type of swelling from a procedure. A lot of the information comparing chignon to other conditions could have been linked to other dedicated wikipedia articles. For example, “this condition is often mistaken for xyz” which would then link to the dedicated article for “xyz”. Half the article explains other conditions rather than focusing on the actual topic, chignon. The last section of the article, “Chignon Management and the Optimization of Vacuum-assisted Delivery”, talks about complications to look out for with vacuum assisted delivery, which I would expect to find in a vacuum assisted delivery wikipedia article, not the chignon one. Rather than explaining it, they could have linked the wikipedia article, further reducing any distracting content. There are a few non-neutral statements throughout the article. For example, a more neutral version of the last line of the article could be something like “health outcomes of infants are improved by frequent communication between the caretakers and healthcare professionals” then cite source(s) that explicitly show this data. Although, I think this section is not very relevant to chignon anyway. Another non-neutral statement is in the lead section, “but as with all birth traumas, it is recommended to be attended to and monitored” - why is it recommended and by whom? Reference 4 and 15 are duplicates. Some references still contain months in their source dates.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Yes. More information and cited references have been added.

3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

“He or she has” in the lead section could be replaced with “they have”, to be more inclusive of non-binary people. I did not find any other issues. Shuyi.lee (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)