User:Applesauce2019/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

= Giant Cell Arteritis =

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

I searched “Giant cell arteritis treatment” in PubMed, then selected “Reviews”

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

The above search strategy brought up several reviews detailing treatments, such as:

Mariano, V. J., & Frishman, W. H. (2018). Tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis. Cardiology in review, 26(6), 321-330. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000204.

Pfeil, A., Oelzner, P., & Hellmann, P. (2019). The Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis in Different Clinical Settings. Frontiers in immunology, 9, 3129. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.03129

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

I selected the paper Tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis because it discusses the existing literature in a focused manner despite still being very thorough.

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


 * 1) The source meets the criteria because it was not published by a predatory journal. Instead, Cardiology in Review is a peer-reviewed biomedical journal.
 * 2) The full article was accessible.
 * 3) The paper was published less than a year ago, so the information is up to date.

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

I will use the source to discuss the side effects of newer treatments for giant cell arteritis because this area is not currently addressed in the article.

Proposed Changes
''Outline your specific planned changes to your section of the article. Target 1-2 sentences for your improvements. Use the exact language you plan to post to the Wikipedia community, and ensure that it is written in a way that is easily understood by non-medical people.''

Since Tocilizumab has only been used in GCA since 2016, widespread instructions about the use of Tocilizumab have not been established. Treatment is highly specific to each individual and the success and safety of Tocilizumab in treating GCA over long periods of time requires further investigation. Tocilizumab may relate to an increase in risk of the formation of holes in the walls of the lower parts of the digestive system (gastrointestinal perforation) and infections, however it does not appear that there are more risks than using corticosteroids.

This is written in a cautious and balanced way, a good approach to have.

Rationale for Proposed Changes
''Briefly explain the rationale for the change and the reference(s) you have used to support your content. Identify any controversy or varied opinion about planned changes in your section, and explain how you decided to move forward with the position you have taken.''

To fully inform the readers on Tocilizumab as a treatment possibility, it is important to discuss the potential side effects. Both articles included in my changes are recent articles that thoroughly discuss the side effects from Tocilizumab in the few short term studies that have evaluated GCA. They also include data on Tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis to bolster the existing literature. I was unsure regarding which potential side effects to include in my changes since some side effects have only been noted in one or two studies, owing in part to the overall lack of literature. I decided to select the side effects that consistently seem more supported based on both papers. I also felt it was important to inform the public regarding the need for further research surrounding the long term use of Tocilizumab because as a relatively new treatment, its effects are still being understood. Both articles highlighted this point. The idea that the readers need to fully informed is excellent.

Critique of Source
Please identify any issues or concerns with the source (including any possibility of bias) and how (or whether) this has impacted on your plans for the information you are choosing to share.

Neither article described how their information was acquired (i.e. a reproducible search strategy). Consequently, it is difficult to evaluate if the authors performed a thorough search across several databases and the overall internal validity. It does appear that there are articles included from reputable North American and European journals, though all appear to be published in English, which may suggest English language bias. However, it is likely that the authors are referring to all the pertinent studies for Tocilizumab in GCA because few studies exist given its novelty and both papers are presenting congruent information. Furthermore, I thought the sources were trustworthy because the publishing journals are peer-reviewed and the authors appear to be experts in the field without conflicts of interest. The overall goal of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine is to provide comprehensive and clinically relevant overviews, and I appreciated that the information was updated in July of 2019 and is considered to "expire" in July 2020, indicating this information is up to date. Accordingly, I primarily chose to use information that overlapped between journal articles.

I agree, there are probably only a few studies on this medication. It would be interesting to see if there was any connection with the authors and the pharmaceutical company that makes the drug.