Talk:Epilepsy in children

Foundations II Peer Review
This article has added a copious amount of information that is cited with references from credible sources. While reading through the article, I notice they follow a general structure of the defintion of epilepsy, diagnosis criteria, classifications, as well as causes and symptoms. The statistics given is factual and non biased, cited with the credible sources. In this sentence "Epilepsy is more common among children than adults where it affects about 6 out of 1000 US children that are between the age of 0 to 5 years old", I enjoyed how the article keeps the information gender neutral by using terms such as children, patients, person. This article meets the goals for improvement as they demonstrate understanding and credibility of the information.Melisalanzar (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

D: The edits made in this article support diversity and inclusion by using gender neutral pronouns such as they/them. The language used does not specify bias or preference towards a certain race, gender, or ethnicity as the particular choice of words reflect inclusion. Examples of this vernacular include sentences such as "once a child has their first seizure or suspect seizure, they are then referred to an epilepsy specialist that will assess the seizures to make an accurate diagnosis". The language used in this sentence reflects the diversity and inclusion in the entirety of the article. By using such terms, the authors information and credibility in the article is strengthened as prejudices and bias are not considered. Rather, the information is logical and factual, strengthening the validity of the sources. Melisalanzar (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought this article was both very organized and professionally written. It follows a nice chronological order (Overview --> Diagnosis --> Testing --> Treatment, etc) with everything thoroughly backed up with reliable sources. I also appreciate how this article explores issues in society rather than confining this topic only in a clinical setting. I personally think that this substantially improves the article and has achieved its overall goals for improvement; the 'Treatment' and 'Social Impact' sections especially stood out to me; it will serve as a great reference resource for those interested in this topic. Lamboozled (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

C: Yes, the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Headers, bullet points, tables, and citations are all used appropriately. Everything is also written factually and methodically. Lamboozled (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This article contains a variety of secondary sources with a few listed that are not freely accessible. "Epilepsy-Work-Up and Management in Children" and "Epilepsy-Definition, Classification, Pathophysiology, and Epidemiology" are both articles from the Seminars in Neurology which are not accessible to the general public. Additionally, I have included three other articles that were not freely accessible online. 1. "Epilepsy Overview and Revised Classification of Seizures and Epilepsies" 2. "Febrile Seizures: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Long-Term Management of the Child with Simple Febrile Seizures 3. "Intrahemispheric reorganization of language in children with medically intractable epilepsy of the left hemisphere".

Three texts were also included that would require individuals to purchase and are not freely accessible online. 1. Devinsky O (2008). Epilepsy: Patient and Family Guide (3rd ed.). Demos Medical Publishing. ISBN 9781932603415. 2. Leppik IE (2007). Epilepsy : a guide to balancing your life. Demos Medical Publishing. ISBN 978-1-932603-20-0. 3. Gay K, McGarrahan S (2007). Epilepsy : the ultimate teen guide (1st pbk. ed.). Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8108-5835-0.

Besides the secondary articles/texts listed above, all the other references listed in this Wikipedia article are freely accessible. Kksop (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is very thorough, and it seems that the information is much more fleshed out. The article is also well-organized and easy to follow, and the sections make sequential sense. The lead section summarizes the article well, and although it does contain information not present in the rest of the article, it seems appropriate since it is generalizing statistics of the condition as an introduction. The article is also well-balanced in sections, with a lot of information to support each. I would just recommend that the article be read over and some of the grammar fixed (i.e. "The first condition which is two unprovoked seizures occurring greater than 24 hours apart will explained as follows." in the Diagnosis section). Sometimes, the sentence structure also reads as if many different people wrote it instead of one blended article. Overall, the edits substantially improve the article, and the group has achieved its overall goals of improvement, specifically the diet section. Comparing to the old article, it is more organized and thorough as well. Jtvko (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A: For the most part, the article reflects a neutral point of view, but there is a section that states "It is clear that leveticiratem when taken with valproate had the strongest results...". The information here is not neutral and reflects the study's point of view - primary literature (clinical reviews) is generally not recommended to be used for the article because later clinical trials can demonstrate them to be wrong. The "Diet" section seems more like it follows Wikipedia guidelines on providing recommendations based on systematic reviews (keto diet more effective than a low-carb diet). Jtvko (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): E. Nguyen Pharmacy, Adrianagardner, Y.Jung, Future UCSF Pharm.D, Danielak290.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpiedra1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References added by Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2020)
Thanks guys for helping to improve Wikipedia by adding some references to support the article text. The references you added, while they do support the text, are not all the best sources per WP:MEDRS, which is the guideline for medical sources.


 * this edit supported the text "Epilepsy affects all ages groups." with this source.
 * This is a recent primary research paper, which reports on a new discovery/research for the scientific community to consider. Wikipedia and MEDRS prefer secondary sources, which will be articles and books that build upon those primary research studies. The advantage of them is that we have another expert reviewing the primary literature and summarising it for us (Wikipedia is tertiary literature). They will choose which research is valuable and reasonable to report. We strongly discourage Wikipedians from citing the primary research literature: it is too easy to cherry pick studies that support just about any old point of view.
 * For a statement like the one in our article, really any decent epilepsy or neurology textbook should be sufficient. This isn't a novel finding at all, but one we have known for hundreds of years. It would be better to replace this source with a better one.


 * this edit supported the text "Pediatric epilepsy may cause changes in the development of the brain." with this source.
 * This is a review article, which is a better kind of source than a primary research paper. Although the introduction makes some comments about neurological development with some epilepsies, the main focus of the article is on rat research. It is a bit ironic that (in their conclusion) they note that the severe epilepsy syndromes they list as being known to cause developmental regression are in fact the very ones for which we have no animal model. And we have no animal model for language or human social behaviour.
 * This isn't too bad a source for such a non-contentious statement. However, it probably would have been more appropriate to find one whose main focus was on childhood brain development and epilepsy, rather than rat brain development and speculation about whether than taught us anything about children.


 * this edit supported text about pre-surgical planning and ECS mapping being the standard of care with this source.
 * This is a primary research paper, and one from six years ago. The article text is supported by the introduction (which is a review of the current state of play) rather than the research itself, so is technically secondary material. However, it isn't as good as a dedicated review paper or textbook. Further, it is describing the "standard of care" in 2014 and itself proposing improved methods. So it is reasonable to consider if this source is in fact out of date.
 * The ideal source for describing best-practice treatment is a clinical guideline statement which might come from some professional body, national health body, or some other disease-focused body like a big charity. Failing that, a recent review paper would be better.

-- Colin°Talk 13:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the constructive feedback Colin! We are a new team still learning a little bit about how to edit Wikipedia articles and you feedback was very helpful. I went ahead and deleted the sources that we added and we will cite new and better ones within the next few weeks. Thank you again! Danielak290 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Daniela
 * Danielak290 There probably wasn't any urgent need to delete the sources. They weren't wrong, and the text they support isn't wrong (though I haven't checked about ECS mapping), just various degrees of "not the best" or "not the most obvious choice". -- Colin°Talk 07:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Dietary Interventions for treating childhood epilepsy
Edits I am suggesting to be made to treatments section specifically on dietary interventions.

The ketogenic diet paragraph has redundancy. I intend to remove these and make the descriptions of the diet more concise while introducing information on impact of diet on seizure frequency and freedom. I also intend to add a paragraph on the Atkins diet (another popular and effective diet for treatment) and where information is available, compare the two. Onicka Smith (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you want to share your proposed references and the wording here first? Sharing the effectiveness of alternative therapies can be challenging on Wikipedia. Quite a few other volunteers on here are happy to help review improvements and make suggestions.JenOttawa (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure! Here is the link to my main source : https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/management-infantile-epilepsy/research or https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-AHRQ-Management-Strategies-Infantile-Epilepsy-Systematic-Review-Report-October-2022.pdf  Onicka Smith (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.epilepsy.com/treatment/dietary-therapies/modified-atkins-diet
 * This was also used for a portion of the atkin's diet info Onicka Smith (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Contemporary Psychology
— Assignment last updated by Elizabeth greeneburg (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great to have your class here helping to improve this article. I removed a citation added (Charlie Foundation article) as it is not a secondary source and does not meet WP:MEDRS. Charlie Foundation It would be a good idea to review these guidelines before editing medical articles. Hope that you are enjoying the Wikipedia experience and can stick around to help improve more articles! JenOttawa (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for your assistance and helping making the additions more concise and appropriate!
 * The Charlie Foundations Article wasn't added by me or anyone in our course as far as I'm aware. I saw it in the existing text and wasn't sure about its validity and removing someone else's source so I left it in with the intention discuss it with my team members and professor tomorrow. We are using the PCORI systematic review assigned by our professor \https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/management-infantile-epilepsy/research to source our information.
 * On the Ketogenic diet page I saw mention of the MCT diet which was not mentioned in the source I linked so I am doing more research on that and might have to use another source.  Onicka Smith (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group [Epilepsy in Children] Proposed Edits
- Modify inappropriate language into Manual of Style (MEDMOS)

- Add new references for needed citations

- Replace any outdated references

- Add new information if available

- Remove any incorrect statements

Vbundang (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UT


 * - Replace as many primary sources with reliable secondary sources NagatAlrubati (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

All references have been reviewed and are correctly formatted. Vbundang (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * NagatAlrubati reviewed #1-10 (all 10 reference are good, minor edit to reference 1 (added PMID) and reference 2 (fixed date))NagatAlrubati (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Vbundang reviewed #11-20 (References 18 and 20 were duplicates. All callouts in text were consolidated and now refer to reference 18)
 * FutureHealthcare (Kathy B.) reviewed #21-30 (All references follow WP:MOS formatting. References 24, 25, 29, 30 all come from the same website, however the authors for each webpage differ so I decided to retain this formatting to ensure authors were properly sourced.)
 * Mahnoorazfar reviewed #31-43

OMEN-PS Peer-Review
Hey, this is Sanabel, I think the article has the potential to be a valuable source for those in search of knowledge about epilepsy in the pediatric population, the overall clarity of the article is good, making it accessible to a wide audience and the content is accurate

noticed that the grammatical mistakes were corrected, the extra information like( A 2023 systematic review of the literature)  were removed and some information is referenced that were unreferenced but it needs minor edits in different places:

- (Introduction); there is a repetition like for example Epilepsy is repeated 4 times it can be written in a better way

- (Social impact - Language) ; some information dont have a citation)

- like what was written in the workplan some pics and digraphs could be a good addition SanabelShaheen (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Article Editing as an Assignment
Hello esteemed Wikipedians, I am a Master's student at Uskudar University. As a part of an assignment for the course "Recent Developments in Biotechnology," I am dedicated to editing the article "Epilepsy in Children," aiming to contribute valuable content. I have already completed Wikipedia training modules to be proficient in Wikipedia editing. I would appreciate any support or feedback on my edits. I look forward to the opportunity to work together and enhance the content on Wikipedia. Best Regards, Mohammad MSHEIK Mhmd91 (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)