User:Bahmad24/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Practice Editing Here (Nov 23rd in-class Wiki session work)

 * This is a place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button).

Assignment # 3

 * Note: You will be emailing your assignment # 3 directly to your tutor, however, please paste a version here that excludes your personal information. This will allow us to support your efforts on Wikipedia prior to editing "live" in the article.

Depression in Childhood and Adolescence
Proposed Changes

Under the Diagnosis Controversy section, there is a sentence that says “However, the accuracy and effectiveness of certain measures that help psychologists diagnose children have come into question.” I would like to expand on this sentence, adding another layer of specificity.

I propose, “However, the accuracy and effectiveness of certain measures that help psychologists diagnose children have come into question. Due to absence of strong evidence that screening children and adolescents for depression leads to improved mental health outcomes, it has been questioned whether they cause more harm than benefit.”

Rationale for Proposed Change

I thought that the information under that section was very elementary, and I hoped to take a first step towards expanding it and providing accurate information that would provide the reader a better understanding of the issue at hand.

I think there are arguments in favor of screening, or else organizations such as the USPSTF would not have recommended routine screening for depression for adolescents. However, seeing as this was the diagnosis controversy section, I felt that it was appropriate to talk about concerns that have been presented in literature in regard to screening.

Reference: Roseman, K. (2016). Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools to Detect Major Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(12), 746–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716651833

Critique of Source

The source did not search for unpublished studies, which would limit the studies included in the systematic review. Also, the search string developed filtered for studies that were published after 2006. Prior to 2006, a study would only be included if it was included in a previously published systematic review, which could have led to missed studies.

These did not have much of an impact on my decision to use the source, as the findings of the systematic review were quite one sided. In addition, multiple systematic reviews exist on the topic, so the pre-2006 issue did not bother me so much. Those potential missed studies were likely to have been caught through them.

What to post on the Wikipedia article talk page?

 * This will also be covered on Nov 23rd in class. Your group should use the below template to share an outline of your proposed improvements (including your new wording and citations). Article talk pages are not places to share your assignment answers. The Wikipedia community will be more interested in viewing your exact article improvement suggestions including where you plan to improve the article (which section), what wording you suggest, and the exact citation (Note: all citations must meet WP:MEDRS)
 * You will not be able to paste citations directly from your sandbox to talk pages (unless you are interested in editing/learning Wiki-code in the "source editing" mode). We suggest re-adding your citations on the talk page manually (using the cite button and populating the citation by pasting in the DOI, website, or PMID). You will have to repeat this process yet again when you edit the actual article live.
 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2020/Talk Page Template