User:Cvo.UCSF/sandbox

Overall, the draft submission presents a neutral point of view. The statements about the association of drugs with pregnancy are cited with multiple sources, and the students also address when there is no clear correlation between the two. For example, under the section "Cocaine," the article presents information on how use of cocaine can lead to cardiovascular complications in pregnant women, but it also states that there are no known conditions that can arise in the children of pregnant women who use cocaine. Another example is under "Pain Medications" where the article states that there is no association between teratogenicity and acetaminophen use; however, there is a "potential for fetal liver toxicity in cases of maternal overdose". The draft consistently presents objective information from multiple sides without the use of personal pronouns or medical/practical advice.

There are a few statements that slightly stray away from a neutral point of view. Under the section "Medications," the article states:

"Some medications can adversely affect a fetus, but in some cases the benefits outweigh the risks."

The statement is not followed by any strong evidence or examples where the benefits outweigh the risks. There is an introduction to this idea starting with "Pain management for the mother is an important area where an evaluation of the benefits and risks is needed," but it is not clear what the benefits and risks are. In addition, for the statement, "NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and naproxen are probably safe for use for a short period of time..." it may help to quote the phrase "probably safe" since this was the description used by the reference (so it does not sound like an uncertain idea).

Another statement that stood out to me was under the section "Alcohol":

"This is why it is very important for pregnant women to abstain from alcohol use altogether."

This statement takes a strong stance against drinking alcohol during pregnancy. It may help to rephrase and/or cite a reference with this recommendation.

Yes! The draft was informative, included many references, and organized really well. The group's edits did improve some of the article's previous issues, which included poor formatting, few references, and unreliable references. The group referenced the CDC, PubMed, and review articles from reliable sources and paraphrased ideas. I liked how the the article was organized by medication class, and within each section, the group presents objective information on the common types of drugs in each class and whether there is/isn't an association with pregnancy.

Per Wikipedia: Manual of Style, one suggestion would be to avoid use of medical jargon when possible. For example, the term "renal" under the sections "Anti-Hypertensives" and "Cocaine" can be replaced with "kidney".

If the group would like to add more information, I would also suggest a brief/general overview of the pharmacology of drugs and how/why they are associated with pregnancy risks (ie. how drugs can cross the placenta, properties that allow them to cross). This was included under some sections like Antihistamines and Alcohol, but a general overview in the beginning summary would be helpful to understand why alcohol and drugs can have serious complications in pregnancy.

"This was most likely because of the different amounts of alcohol ingested during pregnancy indicating that there is not a clear, specific dose that determines if a fetus will be affected by alcohol or not. This is why it is very important for pregnant women to abstain from alcohol use altogether."

Biliblanket: Biliblanket

Side Effects

Short-Term


 * Skin lesions
 * Diarrhea due to thermal and hydroelectrolytic abnormalities
 * Bronze baby syndrome
 * Hematological changes
 * Paralytic ileus

Long-Term


 * Neoplasms
 * Skin lesions
 * Allergic diseases (allergic asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis)

Choriocarcinoma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choriocarcinoma

Improvements:

1. In Treatments, there is a statement that begins with "At present..." about present treatment, which references older sources from 1989 and 2006. To clarify that these listed treatments are not current, we could either revise the statement to begin with "As of 2006..." or find new references and include treatments from recent years.

2. In Treatments, it might be helpful to structure/organize the treatments based on the severity of the disease or by the types of treatment (ie. Medications, Surgery, Chemotherapy)

3. In Treatments, there is no reference for the statistic, "The cure rate, even for metastatic gestational choriocarcinoma, is around 90–95%". It would be helpful to have a reference and/or an updated statistic.

4. It is not really clear what constitutes as "intermediate" or "high-risk disease" in the Treatments section. An explanation following the statement or a reference would be helpful.

Most of the suggestions I thought of were found in the Treatments section since this section doesn't seem updated. These changes might affect the work of people currently editing the article because discoveries in new treatments might be made daily, and it can be difficult to find reliable references and evidence to support the efficacy of treatments.