User:Anesthesiastudent2024/Cardiogenic shock/Swk152419 Peer Review

General info
Anesthesiastudent2024
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Anesthesia student has a fantastic start to editing the draft. The user outlined the changes with the following: deleting dobutamine mention due to redundancy, clean up pharmacotherapy section, and section as well as augment the treatment section.

First and foremost, the three proposed major changes were completed. Regarding the first change, I agree that deleting this helped with the redundancy. This change was made in the sandbox draft I am reviewing and think it reflects things in a better way.

Secondly, the pharmacotherapy section was cleaned up and became much easier to read. More plain language was used and the logic and content was easier to follow.

Thirdly, the breakdown of treatment was nice. The subsections are logical into the following categories: medication, pump, LVAD, and VA-ECMO. I wish I had this source when studying cardiogenic shock!

I personally think the lead paragraphs of cardiogenic shock are a bit all over the place and work could be done there to approach the issue from a physiology point of view. If I was a non-medical viewer, I would think "what the heck is shock." May be helpful to approach the issue very broadly and zero in logically.

With the proposed change above to lead paragraph and the newly drafted changes by anesthesia student on treatment subtypes, there is a clear structure to the page. With that, I believe there is nicely balanced coverage. With cardiogenic shock, treatment is very important and this section has been expounded upon very well. The content is neutral and the sources are reliable.

The most important thing that could be done with the article is to add more citations. Cardiogenic shock has many sources in the literature, and adding more for people to follow along with the augmented treatment sections would drastically improve the article.

I like the flow of the article and will take this style in mind when I continue to edit my own.

Amazing work as always!!!