Talk:Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection

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): Wrroth97, RShah33, Nnobahar, J.Orta UCSF. Peer reviewers: Sshen18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Systematic review
10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00485-5 JFW &#124; T@lk  10:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 9 proposed edits
As a group, we propose the following edits to be completed in the next two weeks: 1. Change the leading sentence to be more representative of the topic. 2. Include a brief introduction to each disease state mentioned (HCV and HIV). 3. Add to the treatment options section. 4. Add an epidemiology section. 5. Focus on adding lay language throughout the article. 6. Add citations throughout the article. 7. Add new current research and information as sources. Wrroth97 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your help! Please ensure that all additions are supported by citations that comply with our guidelines for medical content. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Graham Beards (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Drug Interaction Table at bottom of Guidelines (Here: https://www.hcvguidelines.org/unique-populations/hiv-hcv) would be helpful under Treatment tab, but copyright request required from parent company.RShah33 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As a group, we have completed the proposed edits and recommend the following future directions: including the table linked above and adding citations that further agree with those currently cited (references currently cited do have overlapping information, but it was not linked in all the places it could have been -- it would be appropriate to double-cite these points when possible). Wrroth97 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Group 10 Peer Review
I am reviewing based on Five Elements of the Best Wikipedia Articles from "Guiding Framework":

Lead paragraph A clear structure Balanced Coverage Neutral Content Reliable Sources My question: Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
 * Good job! I feel like it was a good overview and I know why this topic is important.
 * Perhaps a more specific title for characteristics? At first, I thought characteristics would be similar to signs and symptoms.
 * Great structure otherwise, the sections flow into each other well.
 * Seems like most paragraphs use 1-2 sources. Perhaps increase the number of sources used per paragraph to have a more balanced article, if possible.
 * Avoid using the word patient per instructor guidelines so the article does not come across as geared towards medical professionals. Otherwise, the paper was written from a neutral point of view.
 * Sources all seem reliable.
 * There is a minor error on Reference 13.
 * Last sentence in the lead is not cited. The characteristics section is not cited.
 * I ran each section through an online plagiarism checker (https://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/) The following sentences were flagged:

From Diagnosis:
 * Other tests can detect the presence of the HIV virus by calculating a

From Signs & Symptoms
 * Although symptoms of HIV and HCV mono-infection have been well-studied over the years, the symptoms associated with HIV and HCV co-infection remain a developing field of research.
 * This suggests that interventions aiming to reduce the disease burden ass
 * In contrast to HIV and HCV co-infection, there has been significant research delineating the signs and symptoms of each of these individual illnesses.

From History
 * Studies have determined that co-infection with HIV and HCV is associat
 * The effects of HIV infection on HCV have been widely studied.
 * However, the data on the effects of HCV infection on HIV are conflicting.

Overall, great article! Pleasure to read and learn about Hep C and HIV co-infection and I am sure it will be helpful to many people. Sshen18 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Edits look great so far! Good job, Group 9!

Part 1: The group addressed the multiple issues that were initially brought up on the article page--inline citations were added, lay language was used, and the edits are written in Wikipedia’s formal but still understandable tone. The group also completed all their proposed edits for this article.

Wikipedia peer review “Guiding Framework”:
 * The lead paragraph succinctly summarizes the article May consider adding brief info about signs/symptoms and general treatment regimens.
 * The sections are organized well and have a logical flow. Each section is comprised of thorough and detailed information. Would suggest putting headings for HIC/HCV/co-transmission in Mechanism (similar to Diagnosis)
 * Comprehensive reference list that includes articles, CDC/WHO sites, etc.

Part 2: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Overall, edits are consistent! Just minor things I noticed include:
 * Use of the word “patients” throughout the article which suggest writing for targeted audience of healthcare professionals according to manual (in the lead paragraph, characteristics, and signs and symptoms)
 * Can add more wiki links for more technical terms (i.e. antibody/antigen in Diagnosis, urticaria/peripheral neuropathy in Signs and Symptoms, etc)
 * Consider changing use of the word “should” in Treatment section to avoid interpretations of the article as offering medical advice. May be useful to mention guidelines that make these recommendations
 * Small grammar error: “In fact, 20% of HIV-positive individuals also [have] Hepatitis C” (Epidem)

Coming together nicely! Great work! K10vea (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Group 9- Overall, great job using mostly lay terms when explaining the topic. When reading your article I was evaluating, “Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify.” I found there to be a neutral perspective on the topic throughout your draft. The information was not presented from a particular standpoint. Good job!

In terms of the lead section, I found it concise and easy to read. I think we were told to avoid the use of “patients” which is included in the lead section. I would also recommend adding a citation when discussing the routes of transmission in the lead section.

The HIV diagnosis section does a great job of explaining the testing and testing windows in lay terms. Under the HCV section, it may be helpful to include what Ab stands for. Also, under the Characteristics section, it is mentioned that there are contradictory studies you could include a reference for that statement. In keeping with lay terms, it would be useful to either link “percutaneous” or expand on the wording under the Risk Factor section.

Just a minor grammar edit under the Epidemiology section which reads as “In fact, 20% of HIV-positive individuals also having Hepatitis C.”

Jarango22 (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph is concise and to the point. Statistics help to add better perspective on populations affected by the disease and you did a great job in connecting the two conditions and showing relevance of the article. The framework is like the typical Wikipedia framework, making it easy to follow. The edits made greatly improved the article.

Prompt: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... will give my input on following editA.M. Tatarian (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC) There is room to improve on the references. The "Characteristics" section doesn't have a single reference cited. The whole article has one different reference per statement, whereas typically there would be a lot of overlap. I recommend re-using more citations that the same information was drawn from to avoid looking suspicious. The sources themselves were easily accessible and freely available, following instructional guidelines.A.M. Tatarian (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As a group, we have addressed the concerns mentioned by Group 10 and are appreciative for the time and effort they spent reading and replying to us! - We removed the characteristics section as it did not add to the Wiki page and was lacking in sources - We fixed minor grammatical errors throughout the Wiki - We linked other Wiki pages for more technical terms - We changed the Mechanisms section to match the layout of the Signs and Symptoms section - We removed the term "patients" throughout the Wiki - We added a citation to the lead paragraph to address the routes of transmission Wrroth97 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)