Talk:Infant/Archive 2

"Benefits of Touch" Subheading Edit
Hello, last week I made an edit to the "Benefits of Touch" subheading to this article that was removed and wanted to clarify that I only wanted to emphasize and give more reasons as to why touch is important and beneficial for an infant. One big example of touch that is vital for infants is skin-to-skin contact. I understand that the information I added in came from one source and a small study, but if more references were used, I thought that maybe this part of the article could use a little bit more information. M0rgan100237 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It isn't about 'more references' but about references that comply with WP:MEDRS. In this case it would call for a systematic review that combines multiple studies. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You are correct in thinking that skin-to- skin can use more information. Here is the kind of info that MrOllie is talking about . why don't you write something here and we will help you with it.  Sectionworker (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I was thinking maybe the following information could be placed after the paragraph titled "Benefits of Touch", or somehow integrated into the already existing paragraph (if it follows the guidelines):
 * Additionally, skin-to-skin contact, also sometimes referred to as kangaroo care, has proven to have multiple benefits for infants. For instance, skin-to-skin contact can help with mother-infant bonding as it allows them to feel secure and release positive-feeling hormones such as oxytocin. Furthermore, skin-to-skin contact has also shown to have a positive effect on neurophysiological development in infants because the touch from a mother activates certain parts of the brain, such as the frontal cortex, which helps with the development of its structure.
 * I tried to be more general in this description of benefits for SSC than the last because I don't know if this still counts towards biomedical research guidelines. I'm also confused because the references I'm using are coming from journals...but are my sources not considered reliable here? M0rgan100237 (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're citing a single study, and what looks like an opinion article. Please, read WP:MEDRS - you should be using meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. I see this is a course assignment for you - it will probably be easier if you switch topics to something that isn't related to medicine or human biology, then you won't have to deal with the special sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand. The kind of refs that you need here are not single studies but are reviews of all of the current information with a report on that.  For example if there is "breaking news" that some or another chemical has just been found to effect some or another part of the brain, we don't use that information in a medical article.  We need to wait to see if other research finds something similar and many new reports are put into medical journals.  Then a group of researchers read all of the available literature (that has been peer reviewed) and writes an article on it.  We can use that one.  For example, see this article:   Do you understand now?  Sectionworker (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. M0rgan100237 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)