User:Bobbymacbobface/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

Practice Edits
Edit 1

Bipolar 1 Disorder

Edit 2

Assignment #2
Jon Mertens - 20091910

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

2.	Two examples of sources are:

-	 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t8/

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US); 2016 Jun.

-	 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25134871

Diagnosis and management of bipolar disorder in primary care: a DSM-5 update. Med Clin North Am. 2014 Sep;98(5):1025-48. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2014.06.004.

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

-	Both documents have a chart that delineates the differences between DSM-iV and DSM 5. The second document provides a more succinct list as it pertains to general practice.

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

-	These represent secondary sources;

-	Not opinion based; and

-	Recent.

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

- 	This information will be utilized to show the changes that have been made in recent years between the DSM IV and DSM 5. This is important as many practitioners are still using DSM IV criteria.

Edit 3

Assignment #3
 Bipolar 1 Disorder 

It was identified on 4 Nov that the Bipolar 1 Disorder page lacked reference to the DSM 5. On 6 Nov, references to DSM 5 were added by another editor. These further changes will add to those made by this previous editor.

Proposed changes The existing sentence, "The criteria for manic and hypomanic episodes in parts A & B will be edited." will be edited. As a reader, I am confused by what is meant by Part A & B. I believe that the editor refers to "criterion". This would be an important change as it is difficult to find "Part A & B" when search for direct sources. For the lay reader a definition of criterion will be added. A criterion is a standard by which something is judged and is how the DSM-5 specifies the groupings of signs/symptoms of a disorder.

- I would add 'Criterion is a standard by which something is judged, and is how the DSM-5 specifies the groupings of signs/symptoms of a disorder' -rreidcaf

Done

Final Feedback:

- Simply written and clear.

- terms properly wiki-linked

- no issues with people-first language.

RREIDCAF

Rational for changes This information will be utilized to show the changes that have been made in recent years between the DSM IV and DSM 5. This is important as many practitioners are still using DSM IV criteria. As the DSM 5 was published in 2013, there are some changes based on recent evidence that should be articulated.

'''

- I think this is succinct and to the point. Well done. -rreidcaf'''

 Final Feedback 

- No change - RREIDCAF

Potential Controversy Due to recent editing by an experienced editor, there may be some resistance to a challenge to their work. The current editor is an ER doctor, which may provide some bias, as an ER doc may have a limited exposure of and a negative view of mental health. As the DSM-5 has yet to be completely adopted, there was may be resistance for some to accept reference to it.

The DSM-5 has not been universally accepted so there may be practitioners that have not adopted the proposed changes.

'''- I would add why the ER doc may provide bias (only sees acute phases of disorder, negative view of mental health, etc.). They don't have to be valid, but just why an ER doc editing a wikipedia page on a mental health disorder could have bias.'''

done

'''- I would maybe say that 'criticism exists of the DSM-5, and this has lead to some practitioners still practicing using the DSM-IV(TR) criteria, and there is some resistance to adopting the new criteria despite DSM-5 publication in 2013. -rreidcaf'''

done

 FInal feedback 

'''- Thank you for responding to my recommendations! - RREIDCAF'''

Critique Source The references, I used to identify updated materials, are published in peer reviewed journals thus the information is considered reliable. This is due to the peer reviewing process followed by modern journals. This does not, however mean that it cannot be incorrect information.

The current editor for the Wikipedia article is an ER doctor which may present some bias, as stated above.

'''- I would maybe make a comment on potential bias in peer reviewed articles. Sometimes you get quackery sent to notable journals (and then we get lots of media following these 'new scientific findings') and we have to wait for the journal to publish a retraction or editorial explaining why the article was allowed to be published. Lots of fads start with a misinterpretation of findings published in respectable journals, and sometimes finding those are part of the peer review process (peer reviewed means that at least one person, not the author, read the article before publication; they won't necessarily make sure everything is right, they just make sure that no gross errors were found, and then let the greater readership of the journal view it when it is published, and bias/errors may be found months/years later.'''

done

'''- you can choose to discuss why the ER doc editing might present bias here or in the previous question. See my notes above. -rreidcaf'''

done

 FInal feedback 

'''Although you have responded to my feedback well, it does not appear that you have gone into depth regarding the email sent by Dr. Murray and the extension that was given. .'''

as per email:

 Review articles: 

'''These articles are different from systematic reviews as the author has selected evidence for the article in an unknown way, thus the review may not showcase all of the relevant evidence. We entrust the peer review process to ensure that the content is valid and representative but this may not be an unbiased source of information. Review articles reflect the beliefs and experience of the author(s) rather than an impartial summary of all available evidence. Threats to the validity of the information in a review article include:'''

-        Articles selectively chosen

-        Strength (or weakness) of included papers not evaluated or shared

-        Lack of clarity (which research used / not used)

-        Personal experience / conventional wisdom used to guide recommendations

Students using a review article should be able to identify at least some of these validity elements in their identification of strengths and weaknesses.

- I feel that you could have expanded on the review article selection process, and any potential bias of the authors.

-RREIDCAF