Talk:Obturator hernia

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 - Plan for Edit
Lack of epidemiology/social history of disease, diagnosis of disease, treatment, as well as prognosis of the disease. We plan on adding these sections in.

Plan on adding more inclusive language as well as a topic discussing the prevalence of disease in men Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Planning to add some pictures of the anatomy or presentation of condition to help with visual clarity Jt2524 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=obturator+hernia&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.randomizedcontrolledtrial&filter=pubt.systematicreview Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Assignments for Edit
Emil Tran - prognosis of the disease

Wilson Tong - treatment of disease

Jenny Tran - epidemiology/social history of dx, visual clarity via pictures

Immanuel Tjahjadi - diagnosis of disease

all - more inclusive language, prevalence of disease in men Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Peer Reviews
Part 1: Overall Goals The updated article is very detailed and improved from the original, with a good amount of references used. Organization is good, although I might recommend inserting another small section after Prognosis of "Formation" or something similar in order to make that information more clear. I also think that increasing the use of active language will improve the readability, as well as using a little more lay language. Overall, however, I think the group has completed work that followed their goals. Shannonchan futurepharmd (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The group's intended additions, including sections on epidemiology/etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis were executed well. Language was clear to understand with substantial, relevant, timely sources. The Epidemiolgy and Etiology section was written well and was able to also include some discussion about prevalence in men. I suggest to rename this section, however, to maybe just Etiology. As my group discussed, the term Epidemiology is often associated with describing distribution of disease across different groups of people and places. While this section does speak about these hernias being more common in persons born female, I usually think of comparisons between regions. If the editing group thinks otherwise, I think this article is still strong as-is! Another small suggestion I have is to edit the sentence reading, "Studies have shown that if untreated, the mortality rate may range from 50-70%." Since the cited source is from 1990, perhaps just point out that in the LIMITED studies done, "current understanding of mortality rate may range from…" Overall, I believe the edits made elevated the article. It articulated common questions people have about disease states, and with the rarity of the disease, the group did well in informing what is known and what could be deemed helpful to an average learner. Celestenoelle.bustria (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The article has majorly improved with the edits that were made. Multiple sections were added, and the use of subsections allows for clarity and thoroughness. One issue with the treatment section is that more references should be used. Hyperlinks can also be used for the common words that link to different Wikipedia articles. Jdpcal (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The group has done an excellent job of improving the article and achieving its overall goals. However, I have a few minor suggestions to make. First, in the lead section, I wish a hyperlink could be added for "pubic bone" or a short description can be provided followed by the term, like "ischial" from the first part of the sentence. Since the audience has different educational levels, providing explanations or relevant links would help the reader smoothly navigate through the paragraph. Additionally, the term "pre-peritoneal fat" is linked to "extraperitoneal space." However, "extraperitoneal" is only the generic concept for "retroperitoneal," "subperitoneal," and "preperitoneal." To provide accurate information, the hyperlink should directly lead to the "preperitoneal" page on Wikipedia. In the epidemiology and etiology section, it would be beneficial to link jargon terms like "adipose tissue" when they first appear in the article. Similarly, in the prognosis section, more hyperlinks for jargon terms like "fallopian tube" should be added. Regarding the diagnosis section, it would be ideal to find more recent sources than the one referenced (#7), which dates back to 1980. Lastly, I suggest considering the addition of more pictures throughout the article to enhance its visual appeal and make the content more engaging. Overall, the team has done an impressive job in explaining a complex medical term, and the information provided is highly informative.Cindycai1998 (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 Language in this article indeed supported diversity, equity, and inclusion. I appreciated that, in the Epidemiolgy and Etiology section, the writers explicitly said "persons born female at birth" rather than saying females, women, or girls. Additionally, the use of "persons" rather than patients was good. Finally, the writers did well in mentioning reasons that may increase the risk of a hernia rather than explicitly calling someone's traits or experiences risk factors, as the alternative language can be a bit demeaning. Celestenoelle.bustria (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some citations that could be added, especially in the Etiology, Prognosis, and Post-operative Care sections (e.g. "Childbirth has been shown...", "When a person experiences...", "Due to the rare nature...", "Obturator hernias occur more frequently...", "Common post-operative approaches include...", last paragraph). Edits are generally consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style, however there are some minor inconsistencies with the spacing of citations after punctuation. The article may also benefit from a few more images, although not necessary. There are many links to definitions that are very helpful. Shannonchan futurepharmd (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The draft submission indeed reflects a neutral point of view. The information is presented objectively with little to no room for bias. The prognosis section does make mention of the obturator hernia being the "deadliest" among the abdominal wall hernias. This language does have a certain connotation, and this term could imply that mortality rate would be 100%. This is not supported by the reference provided. This can potentially be omitted or changed to something more appropriate that is supported by the data. Jdpcal (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the references provided are trustworthy and easily verifiable. They come from reputable peer-reviewed journals and government databases, with most of them being freely accessible. However, reference #21 is cited from UNC Health, and the website URL ends with .com, which indicates it might be a commercial site rather than a non-profit or educational organization (.org or .edu). Additionally, there is no author listed or references included on the website. While the site appears to be trustworthy, it is advisable to prioritize sources ending with .org, .gov, or .edu for added reliability.Cindycai1998 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References Check
The group has reviewed all references. References are now correctly formatted. Immanuel:

Sources 1: citation includes date, DOI, and PMID, published in a reputable journal (BMC Surgery) and is a retrospective analysis. No predatory publishing

Source 2: Citation includes date, DOI, PMID, published in a reputable journal (Hernia, the world Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) and is on SpringerLink. Consists of a systematic review of relevant literature with citations to the studies. No predatory publishing

Source 3: Citation includes date, DOI, PMID, published in Journal of American College of Surgeons. A little out of date but presents relevant information regarding rarity of topic. No predatory publishing

Source 4: Citation includes date, DOI, PMID, published in Biophysical journal, open archive as well. No predatory publishing

Source 5: Originally a predatory article, replaced with article from BMJ Surgery

Emil:

Sources 6-10: All references have been reviewed and the correct format has been confirmed. No predatory publishers have been identified.

Jenny (jt2524):

Sources 11-16: All references reviewed and correctly formatted. No predatory publishers identified

Wilson:

Sources 17-22: All references reviewed and correctly formatted. There was no predatory publishers identified.

Immanueltjahjadi (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)