Talk:Electromyoneurography

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. The revised article will be posted by March 22, 2013. Please leave any comments on sources or information you would like to see on this topic.

Untitled
The goal of writing this article was to synthesize information about electroneurography and electromyography, as electomyoneurography isn't a novel technique, but rather the combination of the two. Finding articles specifically about electromyoneurography proved to be a challenge, as most sources discuss either technique, but not as a combination. Noahgford (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: All reviews have been considered and our article has been updated accordingly. New sections, reorganization of information as well as the addition of images were included in the final product. Thanks to everyone that took the time to thoroughly read and contribute valuable suggestions towards making the Electromyoneurography article the best it could be! Noahgford (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall, the article is well written in intelligent but easy to understand language. It also flows from section to section in a neutral voice. I specifically reviewed the Medicaid Services Manual as a source. It appears to be a good reliable secondary source and the writers did a good job of implementing the information from the source into their article. Some additional information from this source that I feel as though would be useful to include could be a list of diseases and aliments that the technique aids in detecting. I know that they mentioned a few throughout their article, but a bulleted list may be useful as well. It may also be beneficial to include the fact that “The EMG/NCS testing in combination with evaluating the range of motion, motor power, sensory defects, and reflexes, can differentiate between neuropathy and myopathy.” It may also be beneficial to include information about the procedure itself to let patients know what to expect. What the sensation feels like, what are some possible side effects, preparation, risks, and aftercare? Maybe also include a section about how results could be interpreted based on whether the conduction velocity is abnormally fast or slow. I found some of this information on http://www.medinstitute.net/index.php5?page_id=19 and feel like it could help improve the article. This website also includes an in-depth description of how the signal is propagated and measured. On Google images I was also able to find some pictures of the recording equipment as well as sample recording data which may help to visually enhance this article. Overall the information that is already included in the article is well compiled, informative, and easy to understand, but the article may benefit from a few minor additions and modifications.

Arakdpr (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the information. We updated the article with your suggestions. However, we are not able to pull images from Google. I was able to find one image from wikicommons. Anyways, thanks for the adviceSammyt21 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The article is very easy to understand. The use of easy to understand language really comes through since I had no knowledge of this beforehand but understood what it was by the end of the article.

I feel that all of the information you had in the article was good and summed up the topic nicely, however, I think it would be good if you went a little more in depth in some of the sections/topics.

I have a few things about the links in your article. There were some words that were linked and some that weren't, I wasn't really sure why this was. Also, There were 2 bad links in the History section to The American Academy of General Practice, and to range of motion and reflexes which led to a "bad title" page. Finally in your last section (modern application) you refer to electromyoneurography as EMNG, if you're going to do this I would recommend doing it at the beginning of the page.

Overall I think it is a really good article that could use a few tweeks! Dotterson (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the review! Unfortunately there is not enough information out there to really go in depth in certain sections. It would be easy to go off topic if we tried to analyze every bit of information on such a vague topic. The external links have been fixed and the EMNG issue has been addressed in the introduction! --Gigs4 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article was written in clear, understandable language that I was able to follow with ease. I didn’t find any grammar errors or confusing sentences that had to be read over a few times in order to obtain a proper understanding of what the author was trying to convey. I would suggest adding some pictures to provide the reader with a visual to compliment the text. I agree with the previous reviewers that adding some more in depth information such as what to expect during and after the procedure would improve the article. Gfolan (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the information. I have added another picture and I am sure my partners will add more. I also added a section where the expected results were explained. Thanks for the adviceSammyt21 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall, this is a very well written article. The information is very clear and well written. I would suggest explaining yourself a little more in general though. Without a scientific background this topic would be very foreign and a little difficult to understand I think. More details and explanations would help this a lot.

Also, I believe Wikipedia prefers that if there are doi numbers or pubmed IDs for a source that they are included in the reference and then linked to the website.

Great job overall! 8712NeuroBio (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the kind words, I will take a look at how our citations are done and see if I can track down the PubMed IDs for each of our sources. We are working on making the article flow a little better as though by one author. I agree that a little more content needs to be added, so a general descriptional section as well as a procedural section are going to be added. Again, thanks for the input, hopefully some of these changes will increase the quality of the article.

noahgford (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review
(ThrowTheBar2 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Writing
 * The lead paragraph summarizes all of the information in the article appropriately and well. In the Characteristics category, you may want to move the second paragraph to the modern applications column, or create another category entirely.  The History category flows fairly well and the use of multiple links to other Wiki pages is a great idea.  Finally, in the Modern Application category a link to MRI and CT scans may be prudent but otherwise the article seems to balance scientific vocabulary with terms that would be understandable to a layman.  Remember, to add at least three more paragraphs to get the maximum points possible (I neglected to do this as well in my article).
 * Citations
 * There are an abundance of in-text citations. However, as stated above the article could be enhanced with links to the actual PubMed article.  Additionally, a link to external research sites may be recommended.  Having reviewed "The sensitivity of electromyoneurography in the diagnosis of diabetic polyneuropathy." article, its use is appropriate.
 * Bibliography
 * There are five outside sources that are secondary however make sure the links are to the actual article.
 * Research
 * The research within the article is well done, expansion within the areas mentioned above both in Characteristics and Modern applications would help in order to obtain at least ten paragraphs. Having done a basic internet search however, there does not seem to be any overt omissions.  The article could benefit with information on what to expect if one undergoes this test since this article is the first source someone would find while doing an internet search.  Numerous Wiki articles contain visual images therefore the addition of a photograph showing measurements or the actually process would enhance the article specifically perhaps the test itself being performed.

Response
Thanks for the review. Although it may make the article weaker, the 10 paragraph minimum was was addressed for the purpose of the class. After the grade is posted we will rearrange the article (paragraphs) so that it may be a logical resource to another. Most of our information comes from sources written in the later part of the 20th century which are unavailable to view on PubMed in an online form. For example, the refrence by Spiegel can only be accessed in the periodicals section of Raynor Library in the American Family Physician Journal. --Gigs4 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I really enjoyed reading this article. In your introduction paragraph, I think you did a very good job explaining the terminology. Under "Modern Application" you reuse the phrase "essentially the combination of electroneurography and electromyography techniques" which you have already used in the article. I would suggest taking this statement out, since it is redundant and unnecessary. Also, in this same paragraph you wrote "where complications are not uncommon and post-operative are is more involved." I would suggest rewording this sentence. Other than these simple grammatical errors, I would say your article was well-written. Bzastrow (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback, Bzastrow! Glad to hear that you enjoyed reading the article. The section I was primarily responsible for was Modern Applications, so I appreciate your commentary on the few changes that needed to be made to really polish it up. We went through the entire article as a group and tried to remove most of the incidences where we stated that electromyoneurography is a combination of the two different techniques. Indeed, that phrase became redundant and chopped up the flow of the article. The sentence that you suggested rewording was changed to: This heightened utility often results in a lesser demand for more invase techniques for acquiring electrophysiological data, such as myelography, a procedure where complications are not uncommon and the amount of attention required for post-operative care is more involved. I think this change made it easier to understand as the wording was a little jumbled previously. Again, thanks for your attention to detail!

noahgford (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall I strongly believe that this is a good article that only requires a few changes to make it better. In the first category entitled “Characteristics” I think that you should link some of the words in there to help people that may not understand what they mean and also help people to explore more. For example, maybe link the type of “diabetes”, “sepsis”, and/or even “comatose”. Also, I suggest explaining more about what medical fields it is used in. Other than that the category is very well and easily understood. The links in the next category, “History,” are good. Maybe included how exactly the technique has changed over time or improved. Maybe write about who exactly Milton B. Spiegel is as he pertains to this topic. The third category is also well written like the rest of the article. I think that a picture would go well in this category. I easily found some on the internet. I picked the article entitled, “Analysis of proximal radial nerve injury in the arm,” to focus on. The article is a good secondary source, is used properly, and is sited correctly. I suggest adding information about the exact pattern that was found in the EMNG. This information can be found in the second paragraph on page 232. Just a suggestion to use some of the information from that page of the source. I agree with all the other suggestions made by the other editors as well. Everything else about the article is very good. Nice work! P meyer9614 (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your review. There are now more external links under "characteristics" that will help people understand electromyoneurography to a greater extent. As for the "History" section, there is no information about who Milton B. Spiegel was as a person and there is little information about how electromyoneurography has changed over time. Spiegel was a pioneer in this field which can be concluded from his research in American Family Physician. If you analyze the article the only "history" of Spiegel is the fact he was part of the American Academy of General Practice which is concluded from his credentials. However, under "Modern Application" there are references to how this is "today's" preferred method which is why it was not included under the history section. --Gigs4 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall, the article is well written and summarizes the technique without being too specific or too broad. There are a few grammatical errors. In the introductory paragraph the sentence "...upon stimulation (electroneurography) alongside with electrical recording..." should be "upon stimulation (electroneurography) alongside electrical recording..." The "with" is not needed. The first paragraph in characteristics is slightly confusing. Perhaps breakdown some of the longer sentences to simplify the paragraph. Also, you don't refer to the technique as EMNG until the last section, I would put the acronym in the introduction and refer to it as that throughout. Birdy1224 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for your input and taking the time to read through our article with attention to detail. We took the time to go through to correct some of the grammatical errors that you mentioned above, as well as condensing some of the more dense sentences and making the sections flow better together overall. After looking at the article, I realized that I was the first person in the group to use the EMNG acronym extensively. Rather than change my other group member's sections, I removed the instances under Modern Applications so that the use of "Electromyoneurography" is streamlined across the article. Again, thanks for pinting out these changes that needed to be made, hopefully the article appears a little more polished as a result!

noahgford (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The article did a good job at overviewing this topic and I did not find the language particularly difficult to understand. Aside from grammatical errors that have already been mentioned. I think you guys did a good job of citation by listing the source after every idea letting the reader know exactly where something came from. Most other articles I have looked at just put the source at the end of the section it was used in making it unclear exactly what came from it. IJWMarq (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for taking the time to do a read-through of our article, and providing constructive input. We were able to make changes to the grammatical errors that you as well as previous reviewers referred to. Appreciated the compliment about the citations, one of our goals was to be as transparent as possible as to where our information was obtained from throughout the article, especially because authorship was a collaborative effort between group members. We also reformatted many of the citations at the end so that they are all easily accessible with PubMed IDs.

noahgford (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Faculty Review
I know you guys had trouble figuring out how to make this article of sufficient length without adding extraneous ideas but it really came out well. I like the addition of the figures and the table with the conditions. I know some of this came from reviewer suggestions but that was in fact the whole purpose. I did a little bit of clean up editing and fixed some of your links (plus added a few). The article was informative and easy to read.

Your bibliography contains a bunch of non-existent links that need cleaning up. MMBiology (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

electromyoneurography (EMNG) or electroneuromyography (ENMG)
Currently we have ENMG redirected to EMNG. However, if you do Google NGram for terms electromyoneurography and electroneuromyography you get no hits for the former. Same applies for the acronyms. In a direct Google search the ratio is about 10:1 for the "electroneuromyography" and a sizable share of the hits for "electromyoneurography" seem to be Wiki-related. Should we consider changing the direction of redirection, or even scrapping "electromyoneurography" altogether? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)