User:Akbhangu7/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!
This is place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button). Please see Help:My_sandbox or contact User_talk:JenOttawa with any questions.

Link: Project Homepage and Resources


 * Note: Please use your sandbox to submit assignment # 3 by pasting it below. When uploading your improvements to the article talk page please share your exact proposed edit (not the full assignment 3).


 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2019/Talk Page Template

Learn to Edit Session
'''EDIT # 1: Type the name of your Wiki Article and save your edit. Save your edit by clicking “publish changes” and include a short description of your edit.'''

Caffeine

'''EDIT # 2: Add any citation to your sandbox using the citation tool (save your edit). Paste your PMID or DOI and the tool'''

'''EDIT #3: Paste your full Assignment # 2 into your sandbox. Please create a heading assignment # 2 to differentiate it from Assignment # 3'''

Assignment 2:
1) How you searched for a source (search strategy – where you went to find it).

-   My group partner (Jasmine) and I were assigned to provide additional information on caffeine intoxication to the “Caffeine” Wikipedia page

-   Considering caffeine related disorders falls under the “Psychiatry” specialty, we consulted the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5)

-   On google, we searched for “Queen’s Library DSM-5” which took us to the “Psychiatry Online” database. DSM-5 was located within this database.

2) What potential sources were identified and considered (give examples of 1 or 2).

-   The International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) were both identified and considered as potential credible sources to reference when making changes to the Wikipedia “Caffeine” page.

3) Why the source was chosen (what made it better than other choices).

-   The DSM-5 was chosen as it was created by the American Psychiatric Association, as opposed to the ICD-11 being created by the World Health Organization. DSM-5 takes on a more clinical approach and clearly delineates when a patient is having a caffeine intoxication.

4) List at least three reasons why the source that was selected meets Wikipedia’s reliable medical sources (MEDRS) criteria.

1. DSM-5 is considered a clinical practice guideline, which at the top of the hierarchy in terms of quality of evidence

2. DSM-5 is also a secondary source which allows facts to be stated with greater reliability

3. DSM-5 is also continuously updated and ensures the most updated and accurate evidence

5) How do you plan to use the source for improving the article?


 * I plan on improving and adding information to the “Caffeine Intoxication” section of the Caffeine Wikipedia page.
 * Specifically, I plan to include updated evidence on how caffeine intoxication can be clinically diagnosed as outlined in DSM-5

'''Create a second heading where you will submit Assignment # 3 (Due Nov 18). Check your edits in the sandbox “history” tab'''

Assignment 3:
Sentence 1:

1)   Proposed Change:

-      Original: The symptoms of caffeine intoxication are comparable to the symptoms of overdoses of other stimulants: they may include restlessness, fidgeting, anxiety, excitement, insomnia, flushing of the face, increased urination, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, a rambling flow of thought and speech, irritability, irregular or rapid heart beat, and psychomotor agitation.

-      Proposed Change: Caffeine intoxication may be diagnosed if five (or more) of the following symptoms develop after recent consumption of caffeine: restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought and speech, tachycardia or cardiac arrythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and psychomotor agitation.

2)   Rationale for Proposed Change:

-      I proposed the following change for a few reasons. Firstly, the original publication does not specify exactly how caffeine intoxication may be diagnosed. It only outlines symptoms that a user may experience if they were to ingest vast amounts of caffeine. Secondly, the source used in the original publication is from Medline Plus, which according to the website, was last revised on May 25th, 2000. Therefore, I wanted to update the information for general users from the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). A possible controversy about planned changes in my section is that the diagnosis of caffeine intoxication could be subjective. For example, to make a diagnosis, health professionals rely on self-reporting by patients. However, the DSM-5 provides updated centralized guidelines for healthcare professionals to refer to in aiding the diagnosis of caffeine intoxication. This information may help the general public understand the symptoms they may be experiencing.

3)   Critique of Source:

-      It is possible that different clinical guidelines could diagnose caffeine intoxication using different criteria, such as in ICD-11. For example, ICD-11 includes nausea or vomiting as symptoms experienced with caffeine intoxication. Furthermore, clinical guidelines may introduce cookbook medicine, which may lead physicians to blindly follow rules rather than make patient-centric decisions. This may be because not following the clinical guideline could lead to legal liability. However, considering DSM-5 is specific to North America and is commonly referred to for clinical information, I chose to use this source.

Sentence 2:

1)   Proposed Change:

-      Original: Massive overdose can result in death.

-      Proposed Change: Death from caffeine ingestion appears to be rare; however, several hospitalizations ((79,438 emergency room visits attributable to caffeine overconsumption in the United States between 2005 and 2011) and some deaths from caffeine toxicity have been reported.

2)   Rationale for Proposed Change:

-      To the general public, “massive overdose can result in death” could be a very strong statement that may be misinterpreted as caffeine being detrimental to health. Therefore, I proposed this change to provide tangible data from a review article citing the number of emergency room visits attributable to caffeine overconsumption. Furthermore, the original publication cited few case reports, whereas my proposed change includes information from a review article which may provide more inclusive data. A possible controversy with my proposed change is that that the data on emergency room visits only spans from 2005 to 2011 and may not be entirely representative. However, I chose to move forward with the position I’ve taken because other sources have also mentioned the rarity of caffeine-related deaths.

3)   Critique of Source:

- Considering this is a narrative review article, this particular source may incorporate a few biases. For example, the articles in the paper may have been selectively chosen by the author. Furthermore, the strength of the included papers are not evaluated or shared as there are no tables or graphs to demonstrate the results of each paper. In addition, personal experience may also be subtly incorporated into the review article to help guide recommendations. However, I still plan to use this information and share it on Wikipedia because the data from the papers cited in the article are relevant to the population in Canada and the United States.

COMMENTS:

1.

Your additions are highly relevant and very well executed in regard to language, syntax, and grammar. If you talk about diagnostic criteria, you always need to mention what source you are using for the criteria. You might want to add something like "According to the DSM-5, ...". In the second sentence, it would be important to quantify "some deaths" in the same way you specified the number of emergency visits - it makes a difference if 2 people die or 50. Apart from those minor suggestions, really well done!

2.

Your rationale for both sentences is very clear, and I fully agree. I especially like that you pointed out the inappropriate language in the second part. You might consider using less strong statements: "I chose to move forward with the position I’ve taken..." might be better expressed like "Even though studies describing the prevalence of caffeine related deaths might not be representative for the entire population, they emphasize  unanimously that caffeine related deaths are a rare phenomenon". Overall, this is a really well written rationale.

3.

Again, you delivered really convincing arguments that show that you are able to critically evaluate sources. It would be helpful to use more of a dialectical approach, and also make sure that the content is not your personal opinion but facts. You are doing a great job with the negative aspects of DSM-5, but the positive aspects that led you to choose it, are less convincing to me and therefore I would not reach the conclusion, from what you wrote, that DSM-5 is the source to use. Also, saying that DSM-5 is "specific to North America" is not entirely true. However, you really delivered a strong work here that only requires a bit of finetuning. Very well done.

 Corrected 2 Sentences: 


 * 1) According to the DSM-5, Caffeine intoxication may be diagnosed if five (or more) of the following symptoms develop after recent consumption of caffeine: restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought and speech, tachycardia or cardiac arrythmia, periods of inexhaustibility, and psychomotor agitation.
 * 2) Death from caffeine ingestion appears to be rare; however, several hospitalizations (79,438 emergency room visits attributable to caffeine overconsumption in the United States between 2005 and 2011) and some deaths (92 reported cases from 1959–2017) from caffeine toxicity have been reported.