User:Alyshapelley/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

Assignment #2
Sentences to improve: Giant-cell arteritis can involve branches of the aorta as well, leading to an aortic aneurysm or dissection. For this reason, patients should be followed with serial chest X-rays.[ citation needed]

1) How you searched for a source (search strategy - where you went to find it)

- Searched (["Giant Cell Arteritis"[Mesh]) AND "Aortic Aneurysm"[Mesh] with filters: Clinical trial, guideline, practice guideline, review, systematic review, 5 years, English

2) What potential sources were identified and considered.

- Chen, J. J., Warrington, K. J., Garrity, J. A., & Prasad, S. (2017). Is routine imaging of the aorta warranted in patients with giant cell arteritis? Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, 37(3), 314-319.

- Kermani, T. A. & Warrington, K. J. (2018). Prognosis and monitoring of giant cell arteritis and associated complications. Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, 14(5), 379-388.

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

- The source chosen is the article by Chen et al. (2017). This source provides more information that is specific to the selected sentences to be improved from the Wikipedia article. The other source was about all of the possible complications of giant cell arteritis.

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

- The reason why the source meets MEDRS criteria is that the source selected is a review. Another reason for why it meets the criteria is that the Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology is not a predatory journal. Lastly, the source was published in 2017, so it can be considered to be recent and up-to-date.

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

- I will use this source to provide more information about the connection between giant cell arteritis and aortic aneurysm. Also, this source will describe whether or not patients should receive chest X-rays if they have giant cell arteritis. The Wikipedia article currently requires a citation for the statement they made, so this source should allow that information to be supported.

Assignment #3
Proposed Change

Under "Associated conditions", I will replace the third point with: "Giant-cell arteritis can affect the aorta and lead to aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection, with up to 66.7% of people with GCA having evidence of an inflamed aorta, which can increase the risk of aortic aneurysm and dissection. There are arguments for the routine screening of each person with GCA for this possible life-threatening complication by imaging the aorta. Screening should be done on a case-by-case basis based on the signs and symptoms of people with GCA. " '''This is very clearly written, with good wiki links. Good use of people-first language.

Rationale for Proposed Change

This change is necessary since this section of the Wikipedia article requires a citation, which is what I am adding in my proposed change (reference below). Having information without a source is why this section of the article is inadequate, and requires a change. I am re-wording the sentences to better reflect what is presented in the reference. The Wikipedia article currently states that routine screening should be performed for people with GCA; however, the reference I discovered presents arguments both for and against routine screening, with the conclusion that the decision to image the aorta should be made on a case-by-base bias. There is varied opinion, and the reference displays both sides of the argument. However, since the conclusion states that the decision should be made on a case-by-base basis, that is the position I have taken for the Wikipedia article edit. Good for finding an appropriate citation. This is not a common disease and the complication is even less common. Well done. Also you have given a good reason for the position you have taken.

Critique of Source

This source is a review, which has threats to validity. The articles would have been selectively chosen by the authors, the strengths/weaknesses of included papers were not disclosed, and there is lack of clarity about which research was used and not used. The source search as well as the selection could be biased. Additionally, it would have been the personal experiences of the authors that were used to guide recommendations, which introduces bias. A more useful review would be a systematic review, which would help to mitigate these threats to validity. This potential bias can lead to controversy about the presented information that I will be adding to the Wikipedia article. However, the source presented both sides of the argument, with a section about the benefits of routine screening for aortic aneurysm and a section about why it may not be necessary. It is useful that both sides are presented so that readers can see both the pros and cons to routine screening for aortic aneurysms in people with GCA. I am planning to present their final conclusion that states it should be done on a case-by-case basis based on the signs and symptoms of people with GCA, which somewhat incorporates both sides of the debate. Instead of screening every person with GCA, people with symptoms such as symptoms of aortic ischemia could be screened. If no one is screened, then this life-threatening complication may occur. Although this conclusion may be biased based on what the authors searched in their review, it does suggest a useful way to handle this situation. Good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of source.