Talk:Guillain–Barré syndrome/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Doc James (talk · contribs) 08:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * 1) This content "(French pronunciation: ​[ɡiˈlɛ̃ baˈʁe],English pronunciation: /ɡiːˈjænbɑrˈeɪ/)" would be better in the body of the article rather than the first sentence. We should get to the definition sooner.
 * 2) Simplified the lead some.
 * 3) Would be good to have refs in the lead to prevent citation needed tags but of course not required
 * ❌ Every other article has pronunciation guidance in the opening sentence. It is the most appropriate place and I don't think there is scope for a separate section on pronunciation and nomenclature. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Every other article has pronunciation guidance in the opening sentence. It is the most appropriate place and I don't think there is scope for a separate section on pronunciation and nomenclature. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

 * 1) Should "Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis" be in quotes?
 * 2) Would move the discussion of ventilation to the treatment section
 * 1) Would move the discussion of ventilation to the treatment section

Causes

 * 1) I presume all the vaccination content is support by ? Would be good to add it as a hidden ref behind each sentence as this content is likely controversial such as
 * 2) * Yes, although the opening sentence could be covered with all key references (Yuki2012 and NatRevNeurol2014) as this is a widely recognised association. JFW &#124;  T@lk  10:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Mechanism

 * 1) Would be good to describe what an epitopes is
 * 2) * Simply changed to "substances" as this is not the place to have a long discussion about antigen cross-reactivity. JFW &#124;  T@lk  10:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Diagnosis

 * 1) Simplify "inciting event" to "cause"
 * 2) What other conditions cause "MRI scan shows enhancement"
 * 3) * I would argue that this is not relevant here. The source doesn't discuss it. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) * I would argue that this is not relevant here. The source doesn't discuss it. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Treatment

 * "Subsequent treatment consists" could be just "treatment consists"? Otherwise subsequent to what.
 * Would split this sentence into two "Subsequent treatment consists of attempting to reduce the body's attack on the nervous system, either by plasmapheresis, filtering antibodies out of the bloodstream, or by administering intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg), to neutralize harmful antibodies and inflammation causing disease" to make it easier to understand.
 * Would add discussion of ventilation here
 * Would add discussion of ventilation here
 * Would add discussion of ventilation here

Prognosis
Is it known what percentage of people are were on the zero to six scale?
 * The main sources didn't provide a breakdown. I think it really depends on regional distribution, because AIDP is more common in Europe and the USA while axonal variant is more common in Southeast Asia. They have differing prognosis. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

History

 * " made further contributions with a further" -> "made contributions with a further"


 * "pharyngeal-cervical-brachial" would be better as "throat, neck, and arm"
 * ❌ Afraid I disagree. This is accepted nomenclature starting with Ropper in the 1980s. The text describes the clinical features adequately, so there is no risk of loss of information because of jargon. No single source I have seen describes this variant as "throat, neck, and arm". JFW &#124; T@lk  10:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Afraid I disagree. This is accepted nomenclature starting with Ropper in the 1980s. The text describes the clinical features adequately, so there is no risk of loss of information because of jargon. No single source I have seen describes this variant as "throat, neck, and arm". JFW &#124; T@lk  10:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Research

 * Is their enough sources for articles on "quinpramine and fausadil"?
 * I have not made a distinction when discussing the various agents under development, as all of them are discussed in Rinaldi's detailed article. Happy to be corrected on this, but the source does not really distinguish between more and less promising agents. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we link to this charity http://www.gbs-cidp.org/
 * It's in external links. None of the sources make specific mention of the charity's work, but I think they are notable enough to mention in the external links section. I am in two minds as to whether to include http://www.gaincharity.org.uk/ (GAIN charity, UK) in the external links section or not. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Well formatted per WP:MEDMOS. Well referenced per WP:MEDRS. Passed as a Good article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)