Talk:Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis

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): Szhang0216, W.chang UCSF, TChan9, Kanwar, future UCSF pharmD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SukhKaur2023, S. Choy, PharmD, Sdo0001, LChing. Peer reviewers: AXie7, Ahuang01, Aochoaucsf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group [26] proposed edits
Szhang0216 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) We will be fleshing out the article and adding citations.
 * 2) We will expand on treatment options
 * 3) We will be adding details to diagnosis
 * 4) We will expand on different types of septic pelvic thrombophlebitis and various manifestations

Sources are not thorough and sections can benefit from more details.Szhang0216 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Likely because the complication is so rare, there are very few clinical trial or meta-analysis articles, and no treatment or diagnosis guidelines for this topic, though this disease has been discovered since the 19th century. Indeed, most articles with any clinical findings are based on case reports limited to 1-5 people. Our group has attempted to reflect changes in incidence, diagnosis and treatment options, mostly based on thrombophlebitis of other regions such as Lemierre syndrome. LChing (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Foundations II 2021 Group 28 will expand upon the proposed edits made by the 2020 Group S. Choy, PharmD (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group [4] Peer Review
Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the wikipedia peer review guiding framework? The article does a great job in providing information about SPT in a concise way that is not overwhelming. I thought the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment section were all well written and provided a lot of information. I would expand on some sources for concept clarification. For example, under Treatment: invasive procedures, there was only 1 line saying how anticoagulant + antimicrobial therapy allowed for non- invasive treatment, but there isn’t much explanation. The explanation will also make the article feel more cohesive. I do like the history and epidemiology in the article –it gives a bigger picture to the disease state! I will try and implement that into my group’s article.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, this group has achieved its overall goals. The treatment and diagnosis sections provide a lot of information and have a multitude of sources to back them up. The diagnosis portion also highlighted the different ways the disease can manifest. Good job!

Are edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Explain. Generally, the article does a great job in following Wikipedia’s manual of style. The sentences are also informative and concise. The sections are organized and easy to follow. Some fixes for the article would be: -The lead section can be more cohesive. As it is now, the sentences do not flow into each other, and read like a bullet pointed list. Ahuang01 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding Framework?” Per the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding Framework,” this group’s edits did improve the article. The lead paragraph has been edited to reflect the group’s additions to the article, and the pathogenesis section added to the beginning is very informative. Additionally, the information that was added was cited from reliable sources (peer reviewed journals, such as Obstetrics and Gynecology). However, the structure of the article can still be improved upon. For example, it mentions in the lead that SPT can be further subcategorized into ovarian vein thrombosis (OVT) or puerperal ovarian vein thrombophlebitis (POVT) and deep septic pelvic thrombosis (DSPT). It is unclear why Ovarian vein thrombophlebitis is listed as a sub-sub heading under diagnosis and imaging. Furthermore, it would be more informative to have a section explaining the difference between the subcategories of SPT, if possible. The history of the disease may also be better served at the beginning of the article. --> Removed OVT as a subheading under diagnosis and imagingSdo0001 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? a. Adding citations -> Good job on your 37 citations added, from peer reviewed journal articles.

b. Expand on treatment options -> Good job in adding details for surgical procedures as well as pharmacological therapy. However, the section could be expanded upon (ie what is venous ligation. There is a hyperlink to learn more about surgical excision, but most people reading the article might not necessarily understand what venous ligation is without further explanation.) Additionally, since it seems that surgical intervention is only reserved for second line, following failure of pharmacotherapy, it might make more sense to move this section to be below “pharmacological therapy.”
 * Added explanation of venous ligation S. Choy, PharmD (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

c. Adding details to diagnosis -> Although there is a lack of specific clinical signs and symptoms for SPT, I like how the article included multiple diagnosis strategies, including imaging and laboratory results.

d. Expand on different types of SPT and various manifestations -> the section for “ovarian vein thrombophlebitis” seems out of place under the “Diagnosis” section and "imaging subsection". Is it a type of SPT? Is it a separate disease that is often misdiagnosed as SPT? This part is a little unclear.

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view. The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. Most of the information presented is backed up by respectable sources, such as articles from medical journals. Some sources included Women's Health Journal, American heart Journal, and Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal. One point I would like to make is that Source #6 seems to be out of date; it's from 1953 and I was having a hard time tracing the source to verify the information. In addition, sometimes I had a hard time finding the source following some statements/claims. For example, the article states that "The main risk factor of developing SPT is postpartum endometriosis, which in turn is most common caused by a Caesarean section." I could not locate the source for that claim. However, the group did a good job in presenting the information in an objective manner. For example, when stating that a CT scan is the “best way to surely diagnose SPT,” the article backed up the claim by citing its source. AXie7 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1.	Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Wikipedia article five elements: A.	A lead section that is easy to understand: does it reflect the most important information? Does the lead have more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? There was some redundancy when describing thrombosis in the pathogenesis section which did not make it clear as to what was going on. I think the introduction can be shorter and only include the first paragraph. The rest of it I think is more suited for the other sections in the article such as risk factors or signs and symptoms.

B.	A clear structure: are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way? I think it would make more sense to have signs and symptoms before risk factors. If you know the signs and symptoms and then have the risk factors to make more chronological sense possibly. I would think history section would make more sense to go first and then epidemiology. It might even go well as the first section before pathogenesis.

→Switched signs and symptoms to go before risk factors. LChing (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

C.	Balanced coverage: is each section’s length equal to its importance to the article’s subject? I think the history section is really interesting. I might actually like that as the first section instead. I don’t know if the ovarian vein thrombophlebitis is necessary under the diagnosis section. D.	Neutral content: At the end of pharmacological therapy I think the use of the word “recommended” is a good choice because if I was reading this article I would be persuaded into thinking this is what should be done or if it was explained a bit further it would help clarify why it is recommended. I think if the wording was changed it would make it more neutral.

2.	Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

It looks like there were more citations added except I think the risk factors and history section can be improved in that aspect. There are some grammar issues that I think disrupt the flow of the article. The treatment options section does seem more thorough and pharmacological therapy. I’m not sure where the information about the study that compared the use of penicillin plus gentamicin came from and that should definitely be cited. 3.	Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The first paragraph of the article and first paragraph of the pathogenesis section is not cited and I am not sure where that information is from. There are only three secondary sources in the pathogenesis section. Under the risk factors section there aren’t any sources cited in the paragraph other than some of the points which makes me wonder where those came from. Maybe if the paragraph was cited then I would understand where those other risk factor points came from. The signs and symptoms section had good reliable sources. I was able to open them up and see where the information was found. The rest of the article had good reliable sources as well. The history section only had one source and I am not sure where the rest of the information was taken from. Aochoaucsf (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

→Thanks for the feedback. A citation was added to support the first paragraph on the Pathogenesis section. LChing (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)