Template:Did you know nominations/Pancreatic injury

Pancreatic injury
Created/expanded by Peter.C (talk), Yutsi (talk). Nominated by Yutsi (talk) at 04:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that while pancreatic injury is less common than other abdominal injuries, its diagnosis can be very difficult due to its location in the body?


 * Symbol confirmed.svg By my count it's 1515 characters long so does just meet that criterion. Fine for everything else. violet/riga [talk] 00:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I took a quick look and the article needs a copy edit from someone else with a medical background. I can take care of that for you this evening. Anne (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Prelim copy edits done. Refs 1-5 abstracts only. However, much of ref 6 available. Please consider mentioning the role of partial pancreatectomy. Also, 1927 was not the first recorded case of pancreatic injury. Chapter 7 for ref 6 mentions cases in the 1700s and 1800s. That includes a fatal case in the Lancet in 1827. Anne (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A recorded case is an article about a specific patient, not the disease, which the previous articles before it did not include. You are correct on the date, changed 1937 to 1837 as it should be. Peter.C  •  talk  •  contribs  05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, I still have some concerns. For example, in your article you indicate that the first successful surgery was performed in 1905 (source apparently not available online). However, in your sixth source, on p 363-4 here, the author indicates case reports in 1892 of survivors of delayed laparotomy. In addition, in 1903, a review of 24 case reports of blunt trauma in the German literature revealed seven survivors, with a survival rate of 64% (7/11) of the patients who underwent laparotomy. Of 21 patients with penetrating trauma, 79% (11/14) of those who underwent laparotomy survived. Also, the article seems skimpy relative to the amount of literature that is available on the subject. So much medical literature is available online now. I noticed that most of your sources were either abstracts or offline. You shouldn't limit yourself to that. Anne (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, if you beleive there is a problem with an article and you have sources to verify your findings, fix it. There are no inherient problems with using paid sources as long as they follow the medical guidelines for citing sources (I would link it but I am on a horrible computer in Peru with a horrible keyboard). During my research I found a small amount of free articles so I used paid sources I have access to instead. Peter.C  •  talk  •  contribs  22:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been over eight days since the above exchange, and nineteen since the last edit. Anne, I think the next step is yours, if you're still around. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should be able to AGF this one. I've looked at the sources and some other free online content I was able to find (I used one source to add to the article), and I find the article content to be credible, albeit missing some details. The key issue is historical, being the date of the first successful surgery. The discrepancy is disturbing. However, I think it likely that the 1905 surgery is the first one that successfully repaired an injured pancreas, whereas laparatomy had been successfully used earlier to promote healing in less severe cases. It would be nice if (1) somebody could read the source that reported the 1905 date to figure out and document exactly what it refers to and (2) Anne could fill in the details about the early use of laparatomy that she found in the book History of the Pancreas: Mysteries of a Hidden Organ (which I can't preview). If these additions to the "History" section can't be made, then the last sentence of the article should be removed, at least for now. --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However, how does one AGF an article whose author has made one minimal change since my copy edits and comments of 9 August 2012 and none since my comments of 17 August 2012? Instead, he has chosen to lecture this physician, who has taught and published at a major university, on the definition of a "case." In addition, while I am very happy to assist contributors with their articles (see copy edits above), I neither created nor nominated this article. I reviewed the article and someone, usually the creator or nominator, is expected to respond to the review, instead of attacking the reviewer. As for paid sources, I absolutely have nothing against them, as I am a paid subscriber to Ancestry and have used it in some of my articles. Will continue review later this morning. Anne (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article. Beefed up diagnosis and added new section, classification. Also, 2nd image with captions. Will work on surgical treatment and history tomorrow morning. Also, we need to do something with that infobox. Anne (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png  What's going on here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anne, who is not an article creator or nominator (she is a reviewer), apparently did not return to the article after making the above comment. The last edits to the article were by me, a couple of days after Anne's comment above. IMO, the article is much improved by her work; the only issue is the questionable sentence about the history of successful surgical treatment. As I suggested earlier, that sentence could be hidden for the duration of DYK. (Ideally, someone would look it up and provide a more authoritative version.) --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, just hide the whole section for DYK? Otherwise looks okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the whole section that would need to be hidden, just the one sentence: "The first successful operation occurred in 1905 and was performed by Garré." --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I fixed the problematic sentence. I found some more sources that substantiated the information in the article. I used the sources to clarify the sentence, and I cited two more references. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Looks good now. AGF on offline sources. New enough at the time of nomination, hook is interesting, cited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)